Zuma Foundation pushes back after court rejects bid to remove Khampepe

Another courtroom clash and another setback

South Africa’s long-running legal and political tensions took another turn this week, as the Gauteng High Court dismissed an attempt to remove Sisi Khampepe from a high-profile commission of inquiry.

The application brought by former presidents Jacob Zuma and Thabo Mbeki sought to have Khampepe recuse herself from leading an investigation into stalled prosecutions linked to apartheid-era crimes.

But the court said no.

And the response from the Zuma Foundation was swift: strong disagreement and a clear hint that the legal battle may not be over.

Why Zuma and Mbeki wanted Khampepe out

At the heart of the dispute is the commission itself an inquiry tasked with revisiting unresolved cases identified in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report.

Zuma and Mbeki argued that Khampepe’s past roles could compromise her neutrality.

They pointed to:

• Her involvement in the TRC amnesty committee
• Her time as Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions

According to their legal argument, these positions created a potential conflict of interest one serious enough to question her ability to lead the inquiry impartially.

The court’s reasoning: a technical knockout

Rather than ruling on those allegations directly, the court focused on procedure.

Judges found that Zuma and Mbeki had failed to follow a key legal requirement: obtaining permission from the Chief Justice before launching legal action against a judge.

This requirement, outlined in law, is designed to protect the judiciary from frivolous or politically motivated litigation.

In simple terms, the court didn’t say the arguments were right or wrong it said the process used to bring them was flawed.

The Zuma Foundation’s response

For the Zuma Foundation, that distinction matters.

Spokesperson Mzwanele Manyi criticised the ruling, arguing that it sidestepped the real issues.

In his view, the judgment focused too heavily on a technicality, leaving serious allegations including claims of judicial misconduct unanswered.

The Foundation is now considering its next move, including the possibility of an appeal.

A missing judgment raises eyebrows

Adding another layer of intrigue is the absence of a dissenting judgment from one of the judges involved.

According to the Foundation, not having access to this judgment makes it harder to fully assess the case and plan further legal action.

It’s a detail that has already sparked discussion among legal observers, who note that dissenting opinions can sometimes offer insight into alternative interpretations of the law.

Why this case matters beyond politics

At first glance, this may seem like just another chapter in South Africa’s complex political story.

But it touches on something deeper: the balance between judicial independence and accountability.

On one hand, courts must be protected from undue pressure. On the other, concerns about fairness and impartiality cannot simply be ignored.

This case sits right at that intersection.

Public reaction: divided, but engaged

As with most cases involving Zuma, public reaction has been anything but quiet.

On social media:

• Some users backed the court’s decision, saying rules must apply to everyone
• Others echoed the Foundation’s frustration, arguing that the merits of the case deserved attention
• Many simply expressed fatigue at the ongoing legal battles involving political heavyweights

It’s a familiar pattern in South Africa where legal proceedings often double as political flashpoints.

The bigger picture: unfinished business from the past

The commission at the centre of this dispute is not just about legal procedure, it’s about history.

The TRC was meant to help South Africa reckon with its past. But decades later, some cases remain unresolved, leaving families without closure.

That’s why this inquiry matters and why who leads it is such a sensitive issue.

What happens next?

For now, Khampepe remains in her role, and the commission can continue its work.

But the Zuma Foundation has made it clear that it is not ready to let the matter rest.

If an appeal is filed, the case could drag on, adding yet another layer to South Africa’s already complex legal landscape.

A familiar story, a new chapter

If there’s one thing South Africans know, it’s that legal battles involving political figures rarely end quickly.

This latest ruling may have closed one door, but it has likely opened another.

And as always, the country will be watching closely to see what happens next.