In an unprecedented legal maneuver that has intensified scrutiny of South Africa’s ongoing reckoning with its apartheid past, former Presidents Jacob Zuma and Thabo Mbeki have filed separate, high-profile applications seeking the recusal of Constitutional Court Justice Sisi Khampepe from the newly established Commission of Inquiry into TRC-era Prosecutions. The applications, submitted just days before the commission’s inaugural proceedings, cite alleged bias, conflicts of interest, and procedural misconduct, thrusting the inquiry into immediate controversy before it has even begun its substantive work.
The commission, announced by President Cyril Ramaphosa in late 2025, is tasked with investigating alleged political interference, institutional negligence, and undue delays in the investigation and prosecution of apartheid-era crimes identified by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Its mandate is to uncover why so few prosecutions have materialized since the TRC’s final report, leaving victims and families in a prolonged state of anguish without judicial closure.
The recusal applications, however, have shifted the initial focus from apartheid-era atrocities to the perceived impartiality of one of the country’s most respected jurists. Legal representatives for Zuma argue that Justice Khampepe’s previous involvement in matters related to TRC implementation and her alleged proximity to certain anti-apartheid activist circles create a “reasonable apprehension of bias.” Mbeki’s submission, while separate, echoes concerns about procedural fairness and suggests that public statements made by Khampepe in academic forums over the years reflect pre-judgment on issues central to the inquiry.
Justice Khampepe, who was appointed by Chief Justice Raymond Zondo to chair the commission, is no stranger to high-stakes inquiries. She previously served as the chairperson of the Electoral Commission and has been a pivotal voice on the Constitutional Court bench. Supporters of her appointment argue that her deep understanding of transitional justice and constitutional law makes her exceptionally qualified to lead the sensitive proceedings.
“This is a tactical delay, but also a profound challenge to the legitimacy of the entire process,” remarked Advocate Nomfundo Mogapi, a legal analyst specializing in transitional justice. “By targeting the chairperson, the applicants are not only questioning one individual’s neutrality but are potentially seeking to undermine the commission’s moral authority from the outset. The success or failure of these applications will set the tone for whether this inquiry is seen as a genuine pursuit of justice or a politically contested theater.”
The move has sparked fierce debate within legal and civil society circles. Victims’ groups, such as the Khulumani Support Group, have expressed dismay, warning that further delays deny justice to aging survivors and families of apartheid victims. “Every moment spent debating recusal is a moment stolen from the testimony of those who have waited decades for answers,” said a spokesperson.
Conversely, some political analysts suggest the applications reflect deeper anxieties about the commission’s potential to scrutinize the post-1994 political establishment, including decisions—or non-decisions—taken during the Mbeki and Zuma administrations regarding TRC prosecutions.
Oral arguments on the recusal applications are scheduled for 16 January 2026, and will be heard in open court. The proceedings are expected to draw significant public and media attention, as they touch on foundational questions of judicial ethics, presidential legacy, and South Africa’s unresolved journey toward full accountability.
As the nation prepares for what may become one of the most consequential inquiries since the original TRC, the preliminary legal contest over Justice Khampepe’s role has already highlighted the fragile and fraught path toward reconciling a painful history with an unresolved present.
About The Author
