Families of anti-Apartheid activists unhappy with delays in TRC inquiry
Survivors and families of victims of Apartheid-era crimes expressed disappointment with the delays in the commission of inquiry into political interference in the investigation and prosecution of Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) cases, but reaffirmed their commitment to the commission.
The first sitting of the commission of inquiry, chaired by Justice Sisi Khampepe, got off to a rocky start on Monday, after it was postponed to November 26, following an objection by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the Minister of Justice to the involvement of chief evidence leader, Advocate Ishmael Semenya, in the proceedings of the commission.
The families, and the Foundation for Human Rights (FHR), filed a court application against President Cyril Ramaphosa and the government in January, seeking R167-million in constitutional damages for what they say is government's "gross failure" to adequately investigate and prosecute Apartheid-era political crimes following the TRC.
The sitting was scheduled to begin with arguments on whether the Calata Group witnesses could be led by their own counsel.
"This was to be followed by opening statements and the family witnesses, led either by their counsel or the evidence leaders, depending on the ruling of the commission," said the FHR.
The foundation pointed out that the adjournment to deal with the recusal collapsed the first hearing of the commission, which had been set down for three weeks, and at which 15 witnesses were to testify.
"This results in a significant waste of taxpayer money, given the costs of the five government legal teams, the commission itself, and those who must fund their own attendance at the hearing," it said.
The foundation pointed out that on September 18, the attorneys for the Calata Group had written to Khampepe requesting that Semenya be excluded from deliberations on the Prosecution Policy amendments, since in 2008 he had represented the NPA and the Justice Minister in a constitutional challenge to those amendments.
"On 19 September 2025, the Judge confirmed in a letter to [law firm] Webber Wentzel that she had acceded to this request. Copies of both letters were forwarded to counsel for the NPA at that time," it explained.
The FHR highlighted that despite being aware of the possible conflict of Semenya for nearly seven weeks, the NPA did not raise any objections or bring an application for his removal or recusal.
"…only in their objection and arguments filed last week, addressing the question of the Calata Group leading their witnesses, did they and the Minister of Justice raise a general objection to his participation. Even by the start of the first hearing on Monday, 10 November 2025, neither party had prepared an application for his removal," the foundation explained.
The FHR noted that at the hearing on Monday, counsel for the Minister indicated that her client would abide by the commission's ruling of September 19.
Counsel for the NPA confirmed that he had not prepared a recusal application and would comply with the commission's directions.
The foundation said the long adjournment caught the families by surprise.
"They assumed that once the recusal directions had been given, that Semenya would be required to stand down pending the outcome of the recusal application; and that arguments would proceed on whether the Calata Group witnesses could be led by their own counsel.
"This would then be followed by the opening statements, and the family witnesses would then be led either by their counsel or the evidence leaders, depending on the commission's ruling," it added.
The foundation said the commission cannot lose three weeks of hearings considering how long the proceedings have already been delayed.
"More than five months have elapsed since the establishment of the commission on 29 May 2025. The current sitting was set down between 10 and 28 November 2025, meaning it will have on...