PRESS RELEASE
To: All Media
ATT: News Editors, Human Rights Reporters
For Immediate Release
4 August 2025
Court Bars Mbeki and Mabandla from Joining Constitutional Damages Case; Ramaphosa’s Application to Stay Proceedings Set for 6 August 2025
The victims’ families and survivors of apartheid-era gross human rights violations together with the Foundation for Human Rights (FHR) welcome the judgement by Millar J dismissing the application by former President Thabo Mbeki and Minister of Justice Bridgette Mabandla to intervene as respondents in the constitutional damages case. In particular, the Judge found:
Accordingly, it cannot be in issue that there was political interference in the prosecution of the TRC cases. Our Courts have found this to be so, and those findings stand and are binding. For this reason, the argument advanced for the Calata applicants that there would be no need for a specific finding against either Mr. Mbeki or Ms Mabandla, is to my mind entirely sound. The issue has been decided.
On 6 August 2025, the Pretoria High Court is scheduled to hear an application brought by President Cyril Ramaphosa and the government seeking to reinstate their opposition in the constitutional damages case filed by 25 families and survivors of apartheid-era crimes on 20 January 2025. In addition, the government is requesting either a postponement or a stay of the main application, pending the outcome of a judicial commission of inquiry promulgated on 29 May 2025.
While the families, survivors, and the FHR welcomed the establishment of the commission of inquiry, they have raised serious concerns about its Terms of Reference. Specifically, they argue that the commission’s mandate should be limited to examining the mechanics of political interference, how it occurred and who was implicated. They object to the inclusion of matters relating to the determination of rights violations and the potential award of constitutional damages.
The families, survivors, and the FHR strongly oppose the government’s application to delay the constitutional damages case. They argue that the commission of inquiry, being an advisory and fact-finding body, cannot substitute the role of the courts in determining disputes concerning constitutional rights. The commission lacks the authority to adjudicate rights violations or award remedies and may only make recommendations to the President, who is both a respondent in the court proceedings and a key figure in the commission itself. This dual role, they argue, creates a clear conflict of interest, as the President effectively becomes both a player and a referee.
END/
Media queries:
Lukhanyo Calata: 082 394 6481
Foundation for Human Rights: Zaid Kimmie, zkimmie@fhr.org.za / 082 883 4934
Webber Wentzel: Asmita Thakor, asmita.thakor@webberwentzel.com / 082 459 2327 and Nkonsinathi Thema, nkosinathi.thema@webberwentzel.com / 082 402 5442
Court papers related to the case can be accessed HERE.
