Zuma foundation calls Khampepe ruling a ‘narrow loss’ as fight moves to SAPS and JSC

The Jacob Zuma Foundation“narrow loss”, after the court dismissed a review application in a split ruling and granted the former presidents leave to appeal.

What the court decided

The Constitutional Court dismissed on Monday the review application brought by former presidents Jacob Zuma and Thabo Mbeki seeking the removal of Justice Sisi Khampepe as chairperson of the inquiry into TRC-era crimes. The court delivered a split decision, with the judgment divided 4–4, and it granted leave to appeal, allowing the dispute to continue.

Foundation reaction and next steps

Speaking for the Jacob Zuma Foundation, spokesperson Mzwanele Manyi said the 4–4 split demonstrated the seriousness of the concerns raised by the former president. Manyi called the court’s interpretation of section 47(1) of the Superior Courts Act a “crucial victory.”

“The court has affirmed what President Zuma has consistently argued, that section 47(1) applies strictly to judges performing judicial functions. That principle is significant, and we will continue to defend it,”

Manyi said the foundation would pursue two further processes on the advice of its legal representatives: a criminal complaint to the South African Police Service about the commission chairperson’s conduct toward the evidence leader, and a formal complaint to the Judicial Service Commission concerning Justice Khampepe’s ethical conduct, based on material already before the courts.

Background to the challenge

The legal challenge followed an earlier ruling by the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg that dismissed Zuma and Mbeki’s attempt to have Khampepe recused from the commission of inquiry. The former presidents raised concerns about Khampepe’s past involvement with the TRC Amnesty Committee and her previous role as deputy director of the National Prosecuting Authority in the 1990s, arguing those earlier roles could create a reasonable perception of bias.

The High Court found the application failed to meet a procedural requirement under Section 47(1) of the Superior Courts Act, which requires the Chief Justice’s consent before civil proceedings can be brought against a judge.

What this means now

With the Constitutional Court allowing an appeal, the matter will proceed to the next legal stage while the foundation prepares the criminal and JSC complaints it has outlined.

Reporting from The Citizen. Published 1 September 2026.