a day ago
July 2021 Unrest: Did SA's Political Leadership Learn Any Lessons?
Residents of Soweto protest outside the Maponya Mall in Soweto, on July 14, 2021 against the wave of violence and looting that afflicted the Gauteng and KwaZulu Natal.
Image: AFP
Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu
July 2025 marks the fourth anniversary of the July 2021 unrest. On the evening of July 9, 2021, riots broke out across KwaZulu-Natal. In the evening of July 11, 2021, these riots had spread to Gauteng.
By the time this civil unrest ended, over 350 people had lost their lives. Some were injured while others lost their property, businesses and jobs. Racial tensions rose in KZN. This untenable situation aggravated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. By August 12, 2022, over 5,500 people had been arrested in connection with these riots – some cases are still active.
But how did we get here? Could the riots have been prevented? Who should be held responsible for acting recklessly, thereby leading the country into this chaos? More importantly, did our political leadership learn anything from this incident to ensure that the country does not descend into chaos again in the future? If not, where is our country going?
To answer some of these and other related questions, it is of cardinal importance to trace the origin of this incident, reflect on how it unfolded, and compare it with the current situation as a precaution on what could potentially happen if the political leadership turns a blind eye on the concerns raised by South Africans, which leave them frustrated.
In a nutshell, the 2021 unrests were caused by factors which could have been easily avoided if the political leadership and the legal fraternity had demonstrated erudite leadership, objective reading of the situation and nonpartisan action.
Firstly, the Zondo Commission misread the political mood in the country. It lacked objectivity in handling the witnesses who appeared before it. The great mistake was for this structure to behave like a court. In a court of law, there is a litigant and a defendant. By contrast, in the case of a commission, everyone who appears before it is a witness. Unlike a court of law, the job of the commission is to get facts right, compile a report, and make recommendations to be considered by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and relevant bodies.
When former President Jacob Zuma appeared before the Zondo Commission, he received a hostile reception and was treated differently. When this issue was raised, some people outside of the Commission argued that such treatment was justified because Zuma was accused of wrongdoing. This was the first mistake.
Given this hostile treatment, Zuma refused to return to the Commission. Justice Zondo approached the Constitutional Court and asked it to rule on Zuma's decision. He went further to prescribe a sentence of two years if the court found him guilty. This was bizarre. It is not common for a litigant to play the role of a judge.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
In its ruling, the court instructed Zuma to return to the Zondo Commission within a stipulated time. It went further to state that it was depriving him of his right to remain silent as had been the case, for example, with the late Dudu Myeni. This was also strange.
When Zuma failed to appear before the Commission as instructed to do so, he was accused of contempt of court. Subsequently, Justice Sisi Khampepe read a ruling which was riddled with emotions, sending Zuma to jail for fifteen months with no option of a fine. Zuma was given until July 4 to hand himself in, failing which the police were instructed to arrest him on July 7. Khampepe defended her ruling by saying that Zuma was the one who appointed the Commission. As such, it did not make sense why he was frustrating its function.
This statement was misplaced on many grounds. Firstly, Zuma did not voluntarily establish the Commission; he was forced by a court of law to do so as Sec 84(2)(f) of the Constitution states. Even then, his prerogative to appoint the person to chair the Commission was removed from him by Advocate Thuli Madonsela's report. Lastly, Sec 9(1) of the Constitution states that 'everyone is equal before the law.'
Indeed, Zuma was sent to Estcourt prison. This happened although some South Africans had already raised concerns that the political leadership and the judiciary had colluded to crucify Zuma. Word spread that if Zuma were incarcerated, there would be riots. The political leadership ignored this warning. There was dereliction of duty on the side of the security cluster.
When it became clear that the intelligence agency, the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the metro police were struggling to contain the situation, the South African Defence Force (SANDF) was deployed in Gauteng and KZN to suppress the riots as part of Operation Prosper. Eventually, the situation calmed down.
On September 5, 2021, Arthur Fraser released Zuma on medical parole. Zuma served his parole period and was supposed to be a free man. Intriguingly, the court ruled that Fraser had erred in his decision to release him. The fact that Zuma had completed his parole period did not seem to matter. He was sent back to Estcourt Correctional Service. Eventually, President Ramaphosa released him together with other prisoners. By then, the damage had already been done.
Now, the earlier question becomes relevant. What lessons did the political leadership (including the President) learn from this episode?
Zuma's matter was a trigger. The real causes of these unrests included political, social and economic factors, which resulted in frustration. The Frustration-Aggression Theory states that when people are frustrated, they resort to unlawful behaviour and join non-governmental forces which resonate with their situation.
Currently, South Africans are frustrated. Issues such as corruption, crime, poor standards of living, political appointments, factional politics, increases in petrol prices, and other issues lead to frustration. What is the political leadership doing to contain the situation? Should there be another spark to ignite the inferno, how prepared is the coalition government to deal with that situation?
Looking at how things are happening in the country, there is no sign that lessons were learnt from the 2021 riots.
* Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu is Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at Nelson Mandela University.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
