Understanding the court ruling on apartheid-era crimes
The case concerned the criminal trial of Christiaan Siebert Rorich and Tlhomedi Ephraim Mfalapitsa facing charges of kidnapping and murder as crimes against humanity, and the crime of apartheid specifically. They were members of the Apartheid Security Branch charged with the kidnapping and murder in 1982 of the 'COSAS 4' - teenagers Eustice 'Bimbo' Madikela, Peter 'Ntshingo' Matabane, Fanyana Nhlapo and Zandisile Musi, anti-apartheid activists and members of the Congress of South African Students (COSAS).
The prosecution of these crimes however was only initiated in democratic South Africa nearly 40 years later – in 2021.
The accused made two main legal arguments. First, they argued that crimes against humanity only became offences in South Africa in August 2022 after the country ratified the Rome Statute and passed legislation to this effect. They argued therefore that these acts were not regarded as crimes in South African law at the time they took place.
In terms of the Constitution, an accused has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right not to be prosecuted for an act that was not a crime at the time it took place.
They also argued that even if it were a crime, the power to prosecute lapsed after 20 years and to prosecute them 40 years later would violate their right to a fair trial. Finally, they argued that there had been political interference in their prosecution and that the charges were brought too late, which denied them a right to a speedy trial without undue delay.
The National Prosecuting Authority and the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) which was admitted as a friend of the court, argued that crimes against humanity including apartheid are a part of customary international law and that the Constitution requires courts to abide by international law.
They said crimes against humanity originate from the prosecution of Nazi generals during the Nuremberg Trials after World War II and have become part of international law since then. They argued that apartheid is a crime against humanity because it involved inhumane acts committed as part of a widespread and systematic campaign against black civilians and opponents of the regime. The charges against Rorich and Mfalapitsa related to acts committed in furtherance of this objective, they said.
The main questions the court had to consider were: whether apartheid was a crime against humanity and thus a crime at the time the acts were committed; and
whether any attempt to prosecute such crimes had an expiry date.
In his ruling on 14 April, Judge Dario Dosio noted that the Constitution explains that customary international law is automatically law in South Africa unless it is inconsistent with the Constitution. This means that it is not necessary for South Africa to have formally signed and ratified a treaty concerning that law, nor is it necessary for Parliament to pass legislation to this effect. This approach had been confirmed by the Constitutional Court on several occasions, he said.
Turning to apartheid, the judge defined it as a system of racial segregation and discrimination which was designed to maintain the domination of the white minority over the black majority. He pointed out that enemies of the state had been subjected to imprisonment, kidnapping, torture, police brutality and assassinations. The UN General Assembly had declared apartheid a crime against humanity in 1966. More importantly, in 1973, the Apartheid Convention came into effect – an international treaty which criminalised apartheid and sought its suppression and punishment worldwide.
In democratic South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission confirmed that apartheid was a crime against humanity. The judge concluded that apartheid had been a crime against humanity for at least 79 years.
Referring to decisions of the Constitutional Court, Judge Dosio said that it had been accepted that crimes against humanity under customary international law can be prosecuted in terms of the Constitution. Based on this logic, the Court found that these constitutional provisions provided a pathway for the prosecution of crimes against humanity which occurred in South Africa before 1994.
Turning to the question of whether there is a time bar date for prosecutions, he found that there was not.
He referred to the Convention on Statutory Limitations, which set out that there are no statutory limitations (expiry dates) on the prosecution of crimes against humanity. This convention dates from the aftermath of World War II when war criminals during the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals raised such arguments.
The judge said in other countries the courts had made a similar finding, that there was no expiry date for prosecution for crimes against humanity. These included Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Spain, the United States, Uganda and Uruguay. The Inter-American Court had come to the same conclusion.
As a result, though South Africa is not a signatory to the Convention on Statutory Limitations, the judge found there can be no time bar for the prosecution of crimes against humanity committed in South Africa. Based on these findings, he found no violation of the accused's right to a fair trial.
Turning to the last question on political interference and undue delay in the prosecution, the Judge noted that it was regrettable that the NPA had taken so long to prosecute apartheid-era crimes referred to it by the TRC. Despite this, he said, the interests of justice still required the prosecution of such crimes, given their gravity and impact on South African society both in the past and present.
The judgment paves the way for the prosecution of hundreds of apartheid-era crimes which were referred to prosecution by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
This article first appeared on GroundUp. Read the original article here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
30 minutes ago
- TimesLIVE
SA worried about dangerous criminals sent to Eswatini by US
The South African government has noted with concern the arrival in Eswatini of a group of dangerous criminals of various nationalities who were deported from the US, with the potential for more dangerous criminals of similar profiles to follow. The US deported five men whom they described as 'barbaric' due to their criminal history in the US, which includes child rape, murder, assault with grievous bodily harm and robbery. According to US authorities, attempts to deport the men from Laos, Cuba, Jamaica, Vietnam and Yemen to their own countries were rejected, which is why they were deported to Eswatini. Chrispin Phiri, spokesperson for the minister of international relations and co-operation, who had initially declined to comment on the matter, said on Tuesday that the minister had noted the earlier statement by Eswatini and the US, in which they indicated they would collaborate with the International Organisation for Migration to facilitate the transit of the inmates to their countries of origin. 'While respecting the sovereign decision of the government of Eswatini, the government of South Africa is deeply concerned about the profiles of these individuals and the potential adverse impact on our national security and immigration policy, given the geographical proximity between the two countries,' Phiri said.
The Star
34 minutes ago
- The Star
Trial of trio accused of feeding slain women to pigs stirs outrage for justice in South Africa
The gruesome murder trial of a white farmer and two of his workers accused of dumping the bodies of two women in a pigsty has reignited calls for justice and accountability across South African communities. This internationally watched case has been postponed until next week, and it has already sparked strong reactions from labour and human rights activists. This trial, which began on Monday at the Polokwane High Court, follows the discovery in August 2024 of the decomposed remains of Maria Makgato and Kudzai Ndlovu, found within a pig's enclosure on a farm in Sebayen. The two women were reportedly killed while searching for food on a farm near Polokwane, and their bodies were then allegedly fed to pigs in an attempt to destroy evidence. Their bodies were then alleged to have been given to pigs in an apparent attempt to dispose of the evidence. Pig farmer Zachariah Olivier, as well as farm employees Rudolf De Wet and William Musora, face charges of murder and attempted murder for shooting at Ndlovu's husband, who was with the women at the farm, as well as possession of an unlicensed firearm and obstructing justice. Musora, a Zimbabwean national, is also facing an additional charge under the Immigration Act for allegedly being in the country illegally. De Wet, a 20-year-old, turned State witness when the trial started on Monday, testified that Olivier was the one who shot and killed the two women. Mametlwe Sebei, president of the General Industries Workers Union of South Africa (Giwusa), said the union welcomes the start of the trial, despite the unjustifiable delays that have deepened the pain for the victims' families and farmworkers across the country. He further stated that the horrific crime, killing impoverished Black individuals scavenging for food and leaving their bodies for pigs to consume like refuse, exemplifies the ongoing dehumanisation faced by farmworkers. Sebei noted that this reflects a persistent system of white terror and severe exploitation still prevalent on farms. He emphasised that they are calling for the trial, along with a harsh sentence, to send a clear message that such brutality will not be tolerated in a democratic South Africa. Sebei warned that the case reveals ongoing failures to protect and support farmworkers in rural areas, who remain isolated and vulnerable due to weak government oversight, poor access to unions, and a legacy of exploitation. He stressed the need to address these issues to prevent future abuses. 'Many farmers operate as feudal lords, believing oversight won't reach them. There is a need to send a message and create conditions where this cannot be. 'The case also epitomises how racialised, exploitative labour practices persist 30 years into democracy. Although in this case the victims might not have been workers, the reign of terror they have fallen victim to directly points to the door of this parasitic system of primitive slavery.' Sebei added that while efforts to organise farmworkers, raise awareness of their rights, and provide legal assistance, these initiatives often encounter resistance from farmers who obstruct access to their farms. This challenge is further compounded by government policies that permit such obstructions. He said it' s crucial to build workers' confidence, and I believe this can be achieved through mass campaigns, rural rallies, and strong solidarity from the broader labour movement. The trial was postponed to next week. The Star [email protected]
Eyewitness News
an hour ago
- Eyewitness News
‘GNU must take full responsibility for Trump's tariffs' – Mmusi Maimane, BOSA
As of 7 August, the US will implement a 30% trade tariff on South African goods. Maimane argues that the Government of National Unity (GNU) must take the blame for not acting to avert the imposition of these tariffs. He adds that conversations around AGOA started late in the Biden administration, and we did not spend enough time as a country improving ties with the US. RELATED: South African automotive industry faces difficult future amid US tariffs
