Constitutional Court Rejects Former Presidents' Bid to Remove Sisi Khampepe from TRC Inquiry
2 sources · South Africa
Who reported this
- Daily Maverick
- Business Day
What the colours mean
- Left
- Centre-left
- Centre
- Centre-right
- Right
- A hatched block means the outlet is affiliated with, or controlled by, a state.
Political lean describes where an outlet sits within the politics of its own country. It is never a position on a single global scale.
Political lean is comparable inside one country and not across them, which is why the bar groups by country first. Publicly funded broadcasters are not marked as state-linked.
The owner of each outlet is listed as a matter of record, not as a judgement about the outlet.
Every source for this story reports from South Africa.
The Constitutional Court has dismissed an application by former presidents Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma to remove retired judge Sisi Khampepe as the head of a judicial inquiry into outstanding Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) issues. The ruling means Khampepe remains the chair of the commission, and the former presidents will be required to appear before her to present evidence. The inquiry, established by President Cyril Ramaphosa in May 2025, investigates political interference and obstruction in post TRC prosecutions of apartheid era crimes.
While the court rejected the recusal request, it delivered a landmark ruling on judicial procedure. The court found that retired judges chairing commissions of inquiry do not enjoy the legal shield of section 47 of the Superior Courts Act, which requires litigants to seek permission from the chief justice before suing. Justice Leona Theron stated that extending this protection to retired judges for life could create a perception that they are above the law.
Mbeki and Zuma argued that Khampepe should be recused due to a reasonable apprehension of bias, citing her previous roles as a TRC commissioner and her time at the National Prosecuting Authority. The court was split on the merits of this bias claim. A minority judgment argued that an objective observer would reasonably apprehend bias, while the majority found that the former presidents failed to establish such a claim.
President Cyril Ramaphosa also joined the court action, claiming he was unaware of Khampepe's professional history when he appointed her. The inquiry is currently examining evidence regarding an alleged backdoor amnesty deal between the incoming democratic government and apartheid generals, including a declassified memo from the final apartheid Cabinet meeting in 1994.
How each side framed it
- Centre-left
- This perspective emphasizes the political stakes of the inquiry, focusing on the moral obligation of the former presidents to testify and the evidence of apartheid era amnesty deals.
- Centre-right
- This perspective emphasizes the legal and procedural precedent, framing the judgment primarily as a victory for legal clarity regarding the ability to sue retired judges.
Sources
100% of the statements in this article were traced back to the source articles listed above.