South Africa opens a new inquiry into apartheid-era killings known as Cradock Four
JOHANNESBURG — When Nombuyiselo Mhlauli was given her husband's body back for burial, he had more than 25 stab wounds in his chest and seven in his back, with a gash across his throat. His right hand was missing.
Sicelo Mhlauli was one of four Black men abducted, tortured and killed 40 years ago this month by apartheid-era security forces in South Africa. No one has been held accountable for their deaths.
But a new judge-led inquiry into the killings of the anti-apartheid activists who became known as the Cradock Four — and who became a rallying cry for those denied justice — opened this month.
It is part of a renewed push for the truth by relatives of some of the thousands of people killed by police and others during the years of white minority rule and enforced racial segregation.
Mhlauli described the state of her husband's body during testimony she gave at the start of the inquiry in the city of Gqeberha, near where the Cradock Four were abducted in June 1985. Relatives of some of the three other men also testified.
Thumani Calata never got to know her father, Fort Calata, who had been a teacher. She was born two weeks after the funerals of the Cradock Four, which drew huge crowds and galvanized resistance to apartheid.
'I don't know how it feels, and I will never know how it feels, to be hugged by my dad,' Thumani Calata, now 39, told the inquiry as she wept.
Two previous inquiries were held during apartheid. A two-year inquest that started in 1987 found the men were killed by unknown people. Another in 1993 said they were killed by unnamed policemen.
Relatives of the Cradock Four likely will never see justice. The six former police officers directly implicated in the abductions and killings have died, the last one in 2023. None was prosecuted despite the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission identifying them and denying them amnesty in the late 1990s.
That commission, set up by then-President Nelson Mandela, attempted to confront the atrocities of apartheid in the years after the system officially ended in 1994. While some killers were granted amnesty, more than 5,000 applications were refused and recommended for criminal investigation.
Hardly any made it to court.
Oscar van Heerden, a political analyst at the University of Johannesburg, said the bitter emotion of relatives at the Cradock Four inquiry showed wounds have not healed.
'Where it was felt that truth was not spoken and there wasn't sufficient evidence to warrant forgiveness, those were cases that were supposed to be formally charged, prosecuted and justice should have prevailed,' van Heerden said. 'None of that happened.'
The failure by post-apartheid governments for 25 years to pursue cases is now being scrutinized. Frustrated, the families of the Cradock Four finally forced authorities to rule last year that there would be a new inquiry into the killings.
They also joined with a group of relatives of other apartheid-era victims to take the South African government to court this year over the failure to investigate so many crimes.
As part of the settlement in that case, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa ordered a national inquiry led by a retired judge into why apartheid-era killers were not brought to justice. The inquiry, which has not opened yet, threatens to expose further uncomfortable moments for South Africa.
While the majority of victims of political violence during apartheid were Black and other people of color, some were white, and families have come together across racial lines. A group of survivors and relatives from the 1993 Highgate Hotel massacre, where unknown men opened fire in a bar full of white customers, joined with the Cradock Four families and others in the case against the government.
They allege that post-apartheid authorities deliberately blocked investigations.
Other inquests have been reopened, including one into the 1967 death of Albert Luthuli, who was president of the banned anti-apartheid African National Congress movement when he was hit by a train. Luthuli's death has been viewed with suspicion for more than 50 years.
At the Cradock Four inquiry, which is expected to resume in October for more testimony, Howard Varney, a lawyer for the families, said this is their last chance to know the truth.
The new inquiry has attempted to retrace the killings, from the moment of the men's abduction at a nighttime police roadblock to the time their bodies were discovered, burned and with signs of torture. The families also want a former military commander and ex-police officers who may have knowledge of the killings to testify.
Lukhanyo Calata, the son of Fort Calata, said he accepted it was unlikely anyone would ever be prosecuted over the death of his father and his friends Mhlauli, Matthew Goniwe and Sparrow Mkonto. But he said he wants official records to finally show who killed them.
'Justice now can really only come in the form of truth,' Lukhanyo Calata told The Associated Press. 'They may not have been prosecuted, they may not have been convicted, but according to court records, this is the truth around the murders of the Cradock Four.'
Gumede writes for the Associated Press.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
WASHINGTON — The legal battle over President Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite his major Supreme Court victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with a more than century-old constitutional precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of Trump's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in part to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved Americans, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused reentry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States, no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a few exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump signed an executive order upon assuming office in January that seeks to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The order is part of the president's hard-line anti-immigration agenda, and he has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' — which they contend means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Md., a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued are usurping the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities on immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review' in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of policies across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and chief executive of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.' Sullivan and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.


Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Mamdani heads to Harlem after stunning New York City primary results
Zohran Mamdani spoke at a rally in Harlem on Saturday as he sought to build on momentum from New York City's Democratic primary, telling the crowd that people struggling to pay for housing, groceries and bus fare are hungry for change. Mamdani appeared at a National Action Network rally days after declaring victory over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo , the presumed favorite in the primary. Results will be finalized after the city's ranked choice vote-counting resumes Tuesday. 'What our victory showed on election night was less a victory between one man and another, but a victory for a city that New Yorkers can afford,' Mamdani said at a rally attended by Black clergy and filmmaker Spike Lee The Rev. Al Sharpton, the influential leader of the network, praised Mamdani for coming to the rally, despite reports that he lost some of the city's most solidly Black neighborhoods in the primary. 'He could have went the other way and said, 'It's me against them.' But he came this morning and he proclaimed something. And I gave him a lot of credit for that,' Sharpton said. The winner of the Democratic primary advances to November's election. Mayor Eric Adams is running for reelection as an independent candidate. Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the crime-fighting Guardian Angels, is running as a Republican. Cuomo, who has conceded defeat in the primary, also could run as an independent candidate. In Harlem, the 33-year-old state lawmaker stuck to a cost-of-living theme that skyrocketed him to political stardom, weaving in quotes from Martin Luther King Jr. , the Bible and the city's first Black mayor, David Dinkins. He said people question whether the city will become 'a museum' of a place where working people could once thrive. 'What we have seen in the last two weeks is a hunger from New Yorkers to move beyond the days of museums and relics and make this city a living, breathing testament to what is possible.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .


Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Job Corps shutdown would displace thousands of young trainees
The Trump administration's move to shutter the nation's largest job training program for low-income youth has been blocked — at least for now — by a federal judge. Why it matters: Job Corps, which served over 29,000 students this year, has long been a lifeline for low-income youth — especially in underserved communities — offering job training, housing, and a path forward. The program was set to shutter June 30. Wednesday's federal court decision temporarily halts those closures, offering reprieve for students, staff and cities nationwide. Driving the news: U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter ruled that the administration lacked congressional authority to abruptly terminate the 60-year-old program, issuing a preliminary injunction while the lawsuit proceeds. What they're saying: The National Job Corps Association said Wednesday's preliminary injunction "is a lifeline." "It returns some stability to students who were displaced — some living in shelters — and to the communities that rely on Job Corps for skilled workers." State of play: Job Corps centers were set to close include locations in cities with large Black populations— like Cleveland, Gary, Miami, New Orleans, and Brooklyn —where the program has been an essential resource for underserved youth. Zoom in: Job Corps, though created under Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty, isn't just a relic of the past. It's still shaping lives and has trained more than two million youth over six decades. Former students have gone on to become electricians, nurses and small business owners. Case in point: George Foreman, one of its earliest success stories, once said the program " saved my life." The big picture: The Trump administration's plan to shutter contractor-run Job Corps centers by June 30 has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge. The lawsuit argues the closures are illegal without congressional approval. Zoom out: The cutbacks mirror broader federal rollbacks on diversity initiatives, education equity, and youth mental health investments under Trump 2.0. The latest: Job Corps closures are hitting major cities hard — including the Atlanta area, Detroit, Chicago, Florida, New York and the Bay Area — where thousands of students ages 16–24 rely on the program for both job training and housing. Some were left scrambling after losing federal contracts; centers abruptly shut their doors. What they're saying: Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, one of the country's largest unions, said the AFT is working with government, labor, and industry to expand high-quality, paid apprenticeships — a critical pathway for the 40% of students who don't attend college. She called the Trump administration's move to pause Job Corps "cruel and destabilizing," adding: "If you care about giving young people a shot at a better life, you don't kick them out on the street." "We urge the administration: Do not turn your backs on these students." The other side: The Labor Department says the program is underperforming, citing a $213M deficit, low graduation rates, and serious safety issues as reasons for the pause. A spokesperson told Axios the department is "working closely with the Department of Justice to evaluate and comply with the temporary restraining order." "We remain confident that our actions are consistent with the law," they said. Between the lines: The Trump administration has promoted rising wages for blue-collar workers. But critics say gutting Job Corps — a longstanding training pipeline — undercuts that progress and disproportionately harms Black and Brown youth. Marcus W. Robinson, a DNC spokesperson, said the program has long been a lifeline for young Black men. In 2024, nearly 50% of Job Corps participants were Black youth, according to federal data. "Trump's repeated attempts to slash it aren't just policy choices — they're attacks on Black progress," he said. "If he gets his way, another pathway to opportunity will be closed — and that seems to be the goal."