Mbeki, Zuma’s ‘United Front’ Delaying Quest For The Truth

Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu

In a rare development, former Presidents Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma agree on one thing. They both share the view that President Cyril Ramaphosa erred when he appointed retired judge Justice Sisi Khampepe to chair the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the Truth and Reconciliation Commission cases that have not been concluded. They unanimously agree that she must recuse herself.

This view has sparked debates in various sections of society. One argument is that such a call is unwarranted and that it has the potential to delay the investigation. Those who hold this view argue that justice will be delayed for the families of the victims of apartheid who need answers.

A counter view is that these two leaders are correct. Buttressing their assertion, they reflect on Khampepe’s career or professional history and conclude that she is not a suitable candidate to lead such an important inquiry.

Noticeably, there is another group that does not want to be drawn into the two opposed viewpoints. Instead, it questions the timing of the two former leaders and fails to understand why the two leaders waited for so long to raise their concerns since Khampepe was appointed in May 2025.

To understand what is happening with this case, it is important to trace it from the beginning and address some of the pertinent questions that have since surfaced.

One of the questions is why Mbeki and Zuma object to Khampepe’s appointment? The main reason is that there is a possible bias in her leadership. This claim is predicated on several reasons.

Firstly, Khampepe was one of seventeen commissioners of the TRC. She was also deputy to the then National Director of Public Prosecutions, Vusi Pikoli. For these reasons, the two leaders feel that she could be tempted to defend the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the TRC, which she was part of.

Secondly, Khampepe is accused of lacking ethics. This accusation is premised on the belief that she advised Advocate Semenya’s lawyers on how they should craft their papers so that she would rule in their favour. Whether this is factually correct or not remains debatable. What is clear is that the allegation itself paints Khampepe in a bad light and thus disqualifies her from holding such an important position in an inquiry that deals with very serious matters.

Thirdly, apprehension of bias is invoked by Zuma’s legal team. This claim is based on the judgment that was penned by Khampepe on Zuma in 2021. While she did not take a unilateral decision, the reality is that her judgment was riddled with personal emotions as well as misinterpretation of facts.

Khampepe’s argument that Zuma was the one who appointed the Zondo Commission and thus should not be the one who frustrated it was ill-informed. It was factually correct but analytically flawed. Indeed, it was Zuma who appointed this commission. However, he did so in compliance with a court order, not because he voluntarily invoked Section 84(f) of the Constitution, which says that the president exercises his right by “appointing commissions of inquiry.”

These reasons raise more questions. Why did Ramaphosa appoint Khampepe, given these concerns? Was he not aware, or did he deliberately make the appointment just because the Constitution gives him the power to do so? Where were his advisors? Did they advise him, then he decided to ignore their advice, or were they also oblivious to these issues?

For those who support President Ramaphosa, their question is why can’t Mbeki and Zuma wait until the process has been concluded and then raise concerns if they feel that Khampepe did not act fairly, ethically, and impartially?

This argument is plausible. However, a counter view is the question, ‘Would such a late objection not further delay the process?’ In other words, will the victims’ families suffer more through this call for Khampepe’s recusal than they would if Mbeki and Zuma waited until the process was concluded?

Regarding substantive issues, both Mbeki and Zuma deny that there was political interference in the NPA’s processes. They both argue that nation-building and national reconciliation were preferred to legal solutions to the apartheid-era crimes. In their view, this was the spirit in which Mandela appointed the TRC. It was also the same spirit that propelled Mbeki to reiterate the two guiding principles when he tabled the TRC report in 2003.

While these points are factually correct, they bear no relevance to the call for Khampepe to recuse herself. They only assist in providing the context within which the TRC was established. Such information could be presented to the TRC commission regardless of whether it was chaired by Khampepe or another retired judge.

But the point about Khampepe’s suitability to hold this position remains valid. If the focus is on getting justice for the victims’ families, it would not make sense to retain Khampepe in her position even after these concerns have been raised. Any insistence that she must remain put would raise questions about whether such a decision was just or not. In fact, retaining her after these concerns could result in further litigation.

Given the context outlined above, more questions arise. Is Khampepe the only retired judge who can lead such an important inquiry? Does she hold ‘special skills’ that her other colleagues do not have? Assuming that Ramaphosa was not aware of all the concerns that have been raised by Mbeki and Zuma, would it make sense for him to retain her just because the constitution gives him the power to do so? Would it be wise to be constitutionally and legally correct but be found to be lacking rationality? These are some of the questions that beg for attention.

What is clear from the discussion above is that there is a need to balance issues. Mbeki and Zuma’s concerns cannot be summarily dismissed. However, the other concerns are worth listening to. Ramaphosa must apply his mind and put the nation first.

* Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu is Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at Nelson Mandela University.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.