Gatekeepers gone rogue: Why Big Law's Legal Sector Code challenge deserves contempt
This article is written reluctantly. However, the writer has no real option but to write this opinion piece, as the application brought by Webber Wentzel, Bowmans, and Werksmans (in its current form) is not only disingenuous, but alarmingly out of touch with South Africa's constitutional and transformative imperatives.
It reads as a strategic retreat disguised in legalese; a reaction not to unfairness, but to the discomfort of transformation gaining ground.
Last month, three of South Africa's largest corporate law firms — Bowmans, Webber Wentzel, and Werksmans —intervened in Norton Rose Fulbright's legal challenge against the Legal Sector Code (LSC), gazetted by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition.
The firms seek to have the code reviewed and set aside, arguing it is unlawful, irrational, and unconstitutional.
In a country where transformation is not a luxury but a constitutional imperative, the Legal Sector Code (LSC) represents a long-overdue step toward an equitable profession that reflects the demographics of South Africa.
Let's be clear: the LSC is not a revolution. It is not asking for reparations. It is asking, ever so politely, that the legal profession begin to reflect the demographics of the country it claims to serve.
It sets targets for ownership, management control, skills development, and procurement; all tailored specifically for a profession that has systematically excluded black South Africans from the highest echelons of influence for generations.
That some of the largest and most prestigious law firms—who have benefited immensely from an inequitable system—now oppose that code should be enough to raise eyebrows.
Of importance is that the Code was first published for public comment in 2022. Bowmans, Webber Wentzel, and Werksmans i.e. the Big Three of Resistance did, in fact, comment during this process, and those comments were taken into account in finalising the Code.
The LSC was signed off by Minister Ronald Lamola in October, but later blocked from publication by then-Minister Patel. As frustration mounted, several stakeholders—including NADEL (The National Association of Democratic Lawyers) and the Black Lawyers Association—threatened legal action. It was ultimately the Black Conveyancers Association (BCA) that formally instituted litigation to compel gazetting.
The case was later withdrawn after Minister Parks Tau, under the 7th Administration, assured that all conditions had been met and committed to publication. The episode reflects the persistent political resistance transformation continues to provoke—and the resolve of black professional formations to see it through.
While Minister Ronald Lamola was a key stakeholder, the legal authority to gazette Sector Codes rests solely with the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition under Section 9 of the B-BBEE Act. The Code was ultimately gazetted by Minister Parks Tau on 20 September 2024, after confirming all legal and procedural requirements were met.
At the heart of their founding affidavit, the firms argue: The LSC applies only to less than 5% of legal practices — excluding over 95% of firms from its scope — yet imposes severe and disproportionate targets on large firms.
No transitional period was provided before implementation.
Several deviations from the Generic Codes (e.g., in ownership, management control, skills development, and socio-economic development) lack the required justifications based on 'sound economic principles, sectoral characteristics or empirical research.'
The LSC excludes black non-lawyers in calculating transformation metrics — a move the applicants say is unjustified and discriminatory.
The process leading to the LSC's gazetting was flawed: the Minister did not address the concerns of his predecessor, Minister Patel, who declined to publish the Code due to legal and procedural irregularities.
The B-BBEE targets could cripple the applicant firms' procurement competitiveness and violate their existing client obligations, particularly in the public and financial sectors.
But that is just a summation; let us now get into the meat of it: the founding affidavit spans over 110 pages and raises 11 grounds of review—each of which we will unpack in detail below, following the broader context and summary provided above. Minister Tau acted unreasonably and/or irrationally
The applicants argue that Minister Tau should not have gazetted the Code without first confirming that Minister Patel's concerns were resolved. However, it is important to note that the formal consultative process for the Legal Sector Code (LSC) spanned five to six years, beginning in earnest around 2018/2019.
While broader conversations on legal sector transformation predate this, structured and sustained engagements specific to the LSC trace back to that period.
The Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) was not blindsided; it participated, advised, and contributed to drafts. That Patel did not personally sign off is not a legal requirement. Moreover, the Minister of Justice is empowered under section 9 of the B-BBEE Act to issue sector codes in consultation—not co-dependence—with the DTIC.
Against this backdrop, any suggestion that Minister Tau acted unreasonably or irrationally is unconvincing. Exclusion of 95% of legal practices
This is a wildly misleading figure. The LSC is binding only on firms with an annual turnover of R10 million or more. That threshold is standard in all sector codes.
Smaller firms are measured using the Qualifying Small Enterprise (QSE) or Exempt Micro Enterprise (EME) scorecards, just as in other sectors. The majority of black-owned firms are QSEs and EMEs. The complaint here is not about exclusion—it's about the discomfort of finally being included. Absence of a B-BBEE Strategy under section 11
This ground collapses under basic legal literacy. Section 11 of the B-BBEE Act allows, but does not require, the Minister to issue a strategy. The existence of sector codes does not hinge on the prior publication of a national strategy. In any event, the DTIC's 2019 national B-BBEE strategy is publicly available. Breach of section 9(2) of the Constitution
The applicants suggest that the Code's provisions are 'self-defeating' and violate equality rights. This is a bizarre inversion of logic.
The LSC was created precisely to give effect to section 9(2), which allows for measures to advance persons disadvantaged by past discrimination. It is not for the historically privileged to suddenly claim victimhood when structural redress is finally enforced. Arbitrary ownership targets
The LSC sets a 50% black ownership target by year five. In a country where approximately 93% of the population is non-white, it is both inaccurate and intellectually dishonest to assert that a target of 50% black ownership within five years is unachievable. The demographics of the population clearly align with the potential for such equitable representation in partnerships.
Alternative forms of equity such as profit sharing and equity equivalents are also recognised in the Codes. Other professional sectors have complied; legal firms must too. Unworkable targets for black legal spend
Firms are required to brief black advocates and instruct black-owned firms. The profession has long lamented the lack of black counsel getting briefs—now that there's a policy solution, it's suddenly 'unworkable'?
The LSC recognises market realities by allowing a ramp-up period and includes flexibility where specialist skills are lacking. Use of unmeasurable indicators
This is incorrect. Every element in the scorecard includes a measurable target and verification standard. The Codes of Good Practice mandate verification agencies to assess B-BBEE compliance based on submitted evidence.
If some firms cannot produce records, the fault lies not in the Code but in their own HR and procurement departments. Misalignment with Generic Codes
The LSC was developed in line with the DTIC's guidelines, as acknowledged in the gazetted notice. Sector codes are, by definition, allowed to depart from generic frameworks to accommodate sector-specific dynamics. The legal sector is not exempt from that flexibility. Breach of the Rule of Law
This is a buzzword argument with no legal backbone.
The Code was developed after a transparent, multi-year consultation involving major stakeholders. It was gazetted after proper public comment and signed by the competent authority. Nothing about it undermines the Constitution or legislative supremacy. Specialised scorecard for state institutions
The applicants are not state-owned entities and thus lack standing to object to this clause. But for clarity: the scorecard for organs of state simply encourages them to support transformative procurement. It's aspirational, not binding. Lack of a transitional period
There was a six-month lead-up to the gazette date and an effective grace period thereafter. Moreover, the DTIC's practice notes make clear that measurement periods can overlap with old codes for a brief time. The hysteria is misplaced.
The firms emphasise that while they support transformation and B-BBEE, they believe the Code in its current form threatens not only their operational sustainability but also the broader objectives of economic inclusivity and access to justice.
Exactly how a framework designed to promote inclusion and equity threatens inclusion and equity is anyone's guess — but apparently, in the alternate reality of Big Law, equity is dangerous when it asks too much of the privileged.
The irony is rich: the very firms now dragging the Legal Sector Code to court are the same ones desperate to retain the Level 1 B-BBEE ratings that guarantee them a steady pipeline of lucrative state work.
They want the benefits of transformation without the burden of accountability. It's a paradox; suing the state for enforcing the very code that underpins the procurement rankings they depend on. If the goal is to remain eligible for public sector briefs, the solution isn't litigation.
It's compliance. Instead, these firms would rather challenge the rules than play by them; a move that exposes exactly why the Code is needed in the first place.
This article is also written against the backdrop of the amendments to the Employment Equity Act (EEA), a cornerstone of South Africa's legislative framework aimed at addressing the deep-rooted structural imbalances that continue to plague our corporate landscape.
The developments are a direct response to the entrenched disproportionality that defines the composition of top management in many sectors, where the overwhelming dominance of white men persists despite decades of democracy. The EEA does not merely encourage transformation as a moral ideal — it mandates it as a legal and societal necessity.
The significance of the Act has been unequivocally endorsed by President Cyril Ramaphosa, who has consistently reaffirmed the government's commitment to substantive transformation in the private sector.
President Ramaphosa has explicitly stated that the private sector remains skewed, with top management still overwhelmingly controlled by white males, and he has called on companies to be more inclusive and reflective of South Africa's demographics.
He has defended the EEA as a vital instrument that not only prohibits unfair discrimination but actively seeks to correct the inequalities of the past. According to the President, these laws are not an overreach — they are part of a broader effort, built over the last three decades, to dismantle the structural inequality inherited from apartheid.
It is against the development of these progressive labour laws, designed to move the country toward justice and equity, that efforts to undermine transformation must be scrutinised. In particular, the actions of the 'big three' law firms, who now challenge transformative instruments like the Legal Sector Code, stand in direct contradiction to the spirit and letter of employment equity legislation.
Rather than embracing the responsibility to lead by example, these firms appear to entrench exclusionary practices under the guise of legal technicalities, undermining the very goals that the Employment Equity Act seeks to achieve.
Perhaps the most galling aspect of the LSC challenge is who's leading it. Not just white firms, but also a few black professionals who have made it to the top and now seem intent on pulling the ladder up behind them. This isn't just a legal fight — it's a moral abdication.
As legal scholar Dr. Mandisa Mahlobo aptly put it in a recent panel on transformation: 'Representation isn't enough. We need redistribution — of power, of resources, and of opportunity.'
Transformation in the legal sector has been glacial. In 2018, the LSSA reported that only 36% of attorneys were black and just 35% were women. At partner level, the disparities are starker. According to the Law Society's 2023 statistics, only 17% of attorneys in senior positions are black, and less than 10% are black women.
More than 60% of legal spend in the private sector goes to the same few firms — firms that now seek to entrench the very exclusivity they claim to be reforming.
It is no coincidence that these same firms who wave the Level 1 flag are gatekeeping the work that status brings in. The Generic Codes may help firms attract clients, particularly from the public sector, but the benefits often stop at entry.
Junior black attorneys are routinely excluded from the most lucrative matters, often offered no meaningful bonuses or promotions, and ultimately pushed out under the pretext of not meeting billable targets.
Promotion data since 2022 in these firms shows an alarming disconnect between the public transformation rhetoric and private practice reality.
This invites an uncomfortable question: is the Generic Code, without enforceable sector-specific guidance, merely a legalised form of fronting? If the black lawyers who help achieve Level 1 B-BBEE ratings are not getting the work, not being promoted, and not staying in the profession, then something is deeply wrong.
Transformation is not measured by PowerPoint presentations or glossy brochures. It is measured by power — who holds it, who shares it, and who is systematically kept from it.
South Africa's corporate sector also bears responsibility. It continues to abet these firms, rewarding Level 1 B-BBEE status without asking how it is achieved or whether it translates into real, lived transformation. It is simply enough to tick the box. No accountability. No follow-through. Just performative compliance wrapped in progressive language.
Instead of engaging with the substance of the Code, Webber Wentzel, Bowmans, and Werksmans have chosen the path of obstructionism. These are not cries of injustice, they are tantrums from gatekeepers reluctant to yield space.
Against this background, it becomes increasingly difficult to view the challenge to the Legal Sector Code as a good-faith objection rooted in technical or procedural shortcomings. Rather, it bears all the hallmarks of a systemic, coordinated attempt to defang transformation under the familiar guise of 'practicality' and 'sustainability.'
The interventions by the big three of resistance only reinforce this concern. While these firms publicly tout their support for transformation and parade their previously disadvantaged candidate attorneys as evidence thereof, their decision to align with NRF's legal challenge exposes a troubling and deliberate inconsistency.
Their argument that the Legal Sector Code is unworkable or too onerous mirrors the same rhetoric historically deployed to stall meaningful transformation: commitment in language, resistance in practice.
If the Generic Codes were truly adequate, we would not still be contending with such glaring underrepresentation of black practitioners, particularly in ownership and senior leadership.
These interventions do not seek to refine or enhance the Code. They aim to dilute its impact and shield entrenched privilege, all while posturing as reasonable critique. This is not pragmatism; it is a refusal to confront the structural inequalities the Code was expressly designed to remedy.
As the Constitutional Court reminds us, transformation is not optional. The time for debating whether we need redress has passed. What remains is the task of implementation.
If this is the hill Big Law wants to die on, let them. We'll be too busy building something better.
The courts may decide the case — but the people have already judged the intent.
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
33 minutes ago
- IOL News
How Inequality and Passivity Are Eroding South Africa's Youth Potential and Threatening the 4IR
This is not just a mental health crisis. It is a national development emergency. It threatens to sabotage South Africa's Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) ambitions before they begin. Image: Andrew Brookes, Connect Images via AFP There are moments in a nation's journey where silence signals something far deeper than calm. In South Africa today, that silence echoes from households where parents have stopped asking if their children will find work, from classrooms where curiosity has faded into withdrawal and from young people whose eyes reveal exhaustion long before adulthood. It is Youth Month, yet for millions of young South Africans, there is little to celebrate. We are not simply facing high unemployment. We are facing the slow erosion of youth cognition, confidence and creative capacity. This erosion is driven by inequality, system fatigue and digital passivity. Left unchecked, this quiet crisis will calcify into something far more damaging than joblessness: a generation disengaged from both reality and its own potential. This is not just a mental health crisis. It is a national development emergency. It threatens to sabotage South Africa's Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) ambitions before they begin. In a society as unequal as ours, inequality does not just widen the wealth gap. It thins the cognitive fabric of a generation. To be young and poor in South Africa is to live under a constant hum of stress. Not only from the pressure to survive, but from the unrelenting weight of exclusion. Daily hunger, overcrowded classrooms, unsafe communities and fractured families are not only social problems. They are neurological assaults. The Journal of African Economies (2024) confirms what many teachers and social workers already observe: young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) show an average 25 per cent decline in cognitive function compared to their peers. This includes memory retention, attention and problem-solving skills – core capacities needed for learning, working and thriving in a digital economy. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ When 78 per cent of Grade 4 learners cannot read for meaning, it is not merely a schooling crisis. It is an early warning signal of national cognitive decline. A country cannot build future industries when the foundational circuits of thought are short-circuited by inequality. It is one thing for the youth to feel unseen. It is another when the very institutions that profit from their struggles begin to deny those struggles exist. In a recent interview, Capitec CEO Gerrie Fourie stated that South Africa's unemployment rate was closer to 10 per cent, not the official 32.9 per cent, because informal traders in townships – those selling fruit on corners or running spaza shops – should be counted as economically active. This was not a technical misstep. It was a rhetorical distortion. And in a country where millions are desperate for policy rooted in reality, it was deeply irresponsible. Former Statistician-General Dr Pali Lehohla responded publicly, calling the remarks not only false but dangerous. Stats SA's labour force surveys already account for informal and self-employed workers. To imply otherwise is to undermine decades of statistical integrity and, more critically, to invalidate the lived experience of black South Africans bearing the brunt of joblessness. When elite actors conflate survivalism with economic inclusion, they dilute the urgency of reform. They shift the focus from structural transformation to cosmetic storytelling. If a fruit vendor earning R60 a day with no pension, no sick leave and no safety net is considered a success story, what does that say about the stories we are choosing not to tell? In many South African households today, silence is no longer golden. It is algorithmic. Children sit quietly, heads bowed, not in prayer or study, but in submission to glowing screens. The home, once a place of learning, discipline and intergenerational exchange, has been rewired by bandwidth and buffering speeds. Herein lies a growing national concern. We are witnessing not just screen addiction, but a form of mental colonialism, where the attention, aspirations and identities of our youth are shaped more by global content platforms than by families, schools, or national vision. With an average of seven to nine hours of daily screen time, much of it spent on escapist and non-educational content, South Africa's youth are not only disengaging from traditional schooling. They are detaching from reality itself. Platforms like TikTok and Instagram are not merely entertainment. They are mental monopolies, shaping what is seen as success, who is worthy and what is worth thinking about. What does it mean when a five-year-old learns to mimic influencers before they learn to write their name? When families eat together in silence, each person lost in their own algorithm? When attention spans shrink, not from medical conditions, but from the cumulative effect of curated distraction? International research (Lancet Digital Health, 2023) shows that excessive digital exposure in under-resourced environments is directly linked to increased anxiety, poor memory and impaired critical thinking. In South Africa, this digital drift is compounded by the absence of adult intervention, overstretched parents and caregivers fighting their own battles. We often ask what is wrong with the youth. But perhaps the harder question is: what has changed in our homes, in our language and in our expectations that has allowed this disengagement to take root? South Africa has declared its commitment to the Fourth Industrial Revolution with urgency. Digital labs, AI workshops and coding bootcamps are rapidly expanding. But behind the buzzwords lies a quieter truth. A digital future cannot be built on a cognitively unprepared present. The 4IR is not just about machines. It is about mindset. And if the mindset of our youth is marked by trauma, exhaustion and stagnation, no amount of laptops or programming apps will produce innovation. The World Economic Forum (2025) notes that South Africa faces a 15 per cent skills deficit in key 4IR sectors, largely due to foundational weaknesses in education and mental health. But these numbers hide an even more sobering reality: our collective inability to sustain curiosity, build resilience and foster adaptive thinking among young people. Innovation does not thrive in survival mode. It requires psychological safety, creative freedom and cognitive stimulation – all of which are in short supply when schools are under-resourced, homes are overstressed and national discourse remains reactive rather than regenerative. A country cannot automate its way out of disconnection. It must first restore the minds that are meant to lead it. South Africa does not need another commission. It needs a culture shift. One that begins in the places we already live, teach, parent and lead. Mental health must stop being treated as a specialist concern and instead be recognised as a developmental foundation, woven into the fabric of our public systems and social interactions. What does that look like? Make schools safe for the mind, not just the body Trauma-informed teaching must become standard. Schools must foster emotional literacy, not just exam readiness. – A maths teacher who affirms a child's artistic strength – A school that includes 'mental focus breaks' alongside academic drills – A child encouraged for who they are, not just what they score Speak differently in our homes Caregivers need practical tools to shift language from shame to support. – A parent who says, 'What's on your mind?' instead of, 'What's wrong with you?' – A grandmother who spots the signs of burnout – A meal shared without screens, a conversation that says, 'You matter' Unlock the power of peer support and mentorship Not all wisdom comes from above. Youth-led groups and 'school mom' systems, where older pupils mentor juniors, can nurture resilience through companionship. – A 17-year-old checking on a Grade 8 learner after school – A WhatsApp group for venting, reflecting, dreaming – A community centre that hosts healing circles, not just homework clubs Elevate the language of leadership Leaders must normalise mental health as a public priority, not an HR footnote. – A mayor who opens a mobile wellness van – A CEO who funds therapy access as part of youth skilling – A minister who begins a policy speech with youth mental health statistics South Africa has long been a nation of endurance. Under apartheid, we learned to bear pain in silence. But that legacy of suppression has hardened into something more troubling – a generational tolerance for despair. Today's youth are not apathetic. They are exhausted. They are inheriting not only economic exclusion, but a national script that tells them to absorb, adapt and smile while doing it. But unlike 1976, today's battle is not fought in the streets. It is waged in the mind. What happens when a generation stands to lose even more, but no longer remembers how to resist? The cost of cognitive stagnation is not measured in hospital beds or dropout rates alone. It is felt in the silence of unasked questions, the flicker of disengaged eyes, the absence of outrage in a time that demands resistance. It is Youth Month in South Africa. We owe this generation more than inspiration. We owe them infrastructure for the mind. Let us build a country where mental health is not a private burden but a public resource. Where every home is a place of healing, every school a space of stimulation, every community a site of cognitive resilience. Let us stop asking when the 4IR will save us and start asking whether we are preparing young minds to lead it. There is no revolution without reflection. Nomvula Zeldah Mabuza is a Risk Governance and Compliance Specialist with extensive experience in strategic risk and industrial operations. She holds a Diploma in Business Management (Accounting) from Brunel University, UK, and is an MBA candidate at Henley Business School, South Africa. Image: Supplied There is no innovation without imagination. And there is no future without the mental wealth to imagine it.
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
SA photojournalist Rashid Lombard wielded his camera and jazz as instruments of resistance and celebration
In documenting pivotal moments in South Africa's journey towards democracy, Lombard grasped the intersection of political life and the cultural world. The click of a camera shutter and the improvisation of a jazz saxophone may seem worlds apart. Yet, in the hands of South African photojournalist and cultural organiser Rashid Lombard, they became inseparable instruments of resistance and celebration. Born in Port Elizabeth (now Gqeberha) in 1951, Lombard began his journey as a photographer during one of the most turbulent periods in South African history. He documented pivotal moments in the country's journey towards democracy, including the release of Nelson Mandela in 1990 and South Africa's first democratic elections in 1994. I am an African studies scholar working at the intersection of creativity, memory and restorative justice. Lombard's work came into sharp focus when I conceptualised and curated the exhibition Martyrs, Saints and Sellouts: The Photographs of Benny Gool, Adil Bradlow and Zubeida Vallie in 2013. Rashid's death on 4 June at the age of 74 marks the end of a life that synced visual documentation of struggle with devotion to the music that sustained – and critically examined – what came after. The journey of a photographer Like so many in South Africa, Lombard's childhood was shattered by the impact of the Group Areas Act of 1950, which segregated South Africans by race. It eviscerated his multicultural boyhood. In 1962, when he was 11, his family relocated to Cape Town. After completing his schooling, he first trained as an architectural draughtsman before moving into industrial photography, beginning his career at a large construction company. He would later become a respected photojournalist. His camera became a witness, capturing not just the dramatic moments of political upheaval, but the humanity of ordinary people living under extraordinary oppression. He photographed for leading global media agencies and also for local anti-apartheid publications like Grassroots and South. If pressed, I would say that my favourite image of his is the one of fellow South African photographer Ernest Cole. The composition demonstrates masterful visual doubling (in a mirror) that illuminates both Cole's life and photography's fundamental nature. This intimate behind-the-scenes image reveals masculine vulnerability – not just Cole's, but potentially Lombard's own exposure. Lombard's achievement lies in capturing this profoundly personal moment between friends. He documents their kinship and connection, a shield against apartheid's brutality. Many other famous South Africans would be captured in his lens – Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Winnie Madikizela Mandela, Chris Hani, Dumile Feni. But he more often dwelled on everyday people. Lombard worked alongside photographers like Benny Gool, Jimi Matthews, Willie de Klerk and Zubeida Vallie, whose contributions were often overshadowed by white contemporaries. Gool documented the liberation struggle with intimate knowledge of the communities he photographed. Vallie, possibly the only black woman photographing the struggle years in Cape Town, brought unique sensitivity to documenting resistance. Jazz champion What distinguished Lombard from even these contemporaries was his understanding that the struggle for freedom extended beyond the political realm into the cultural, where jazz music thrived. During the 1980s, as black townships burned and international sanctions tightened, jazz clubs and homes became sanctuaries. Here South Africans could express their humanity through music. Lombard captured the musicians and their struggles, decades later publishing his photo book Jazz Rocks. He founded an events company in 1997 and established the important Cape Town International Jazz Festival in 2000. A rich legacy What emerges from Lombard's body of work is a profound understanding of interconnectedness. Between art and politics, between individual expression and collective liberation, between the click of a shutter and the rhythm of a bass line. His photographs capture not just what happened, but what it felt like to live through the transformation of a nation. They show us jazz musicians and protest marchers as performers in democracy's great improvisation, and ordinary moments as extraordinary acts of defiance. For the archive of the anti-apartheid struggle, Lombard's contributions represent something beyond mere documentation. They constitute a visual testimony to both the dream of freedom and its complex, often painful unrealisation. His later images reveal the euphoria of liberation alongside the sobering recognition that political freedom would not automatically translate into economic justice or social equality. In documenting both the struggle and its aftermath, Lombard's rich archive – including more than 500,000 film negatives – becomes a meditation. His photographs ask uncomfortable questions. What does liberation mean when poverty persists? How do we measure progress when cultural expression remains undervalued? They remind us that revolution can be both the raised fist and the extended saxophone, both the protest chant and the syncopated rhythm that makes our hips sway in hope. Lombard's legacy lies in his recognition that freedom has many expressions, and that its struggle extends far beyond political emancipation. He is survived by his partner, Colleen, and children Chevan, Shadley, Yana, Zach and Daniel. They shared not only his life, but the sacrifices that apartheid demanded. Hamba kahle, Rashid, go well. We mourn you through your photographs, which remind us of your life, one lived in the pursuit of justice, art and truth. DM First published by The Conversation. Siona O'Connell is a professor of interdisciplinary studies and African studies at the University of Pretoria. This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.
Eyewitness News
an hour ago
- Eyewitness News
ActionSA calls for NPA head Shamila Batohi to be suspended
JOHANNESBURG - ActionSA is calling for the suspension of National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head Shamila Batohi, saying the organisation has failed to successfully prosecute some high-profile cases. The party was picketing outside the Justice Department in Pretoria on Thursday, to hand over a memorandum of demands which includes that Justice Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi begin the process of removing Batohi. The party has criticised the NPA for its handling of recent matters including the rape case of Nigerian pastor Timothy Omotoso, and the corruption involving Moroadi Cholota and former African National Congress (ANC) member of Parliament Zizi Kodwa. ActionSA supporters gathered outside the Justice Department offices to hear party leader Herman Mashaba express his dissatisfaction with the performance of the NPA. ALSO READ: • Investigating Directorate to submit fresh extradition application for Guptas • Dearth of investigating skills among reasons for delays in prosecuting big corruption cases, SCOPA hears Mashaba said Batohi is incompetent and has caused dysfunction within the organisation. Kubayi was, however, not available to receive the party's memorandum. Mashaba said Batohi's incompetence can't be justified. "It's an excuse, it's nonsense it's unacceptable, she must not really treat us as South Africans who are fools." The party has given the department seven days to respond. ACTIONSA CALLS ON CITIZENS TO BOLSTER ITS CALL ActionSA has also urged members of the public to support the call for the removal of term began in 2018 at the peak of the state capture commission of inquiry, with the promise of prosecuting high-profile corruption six years on, there's been little movement in that direction, with Batohi citing a lack of resources for Mashaba says this is an excuse that South Africans should reject."We know it's only going to be through pressure by all South Africans to hold them accountable because the ANC [African National Congress] of Cyril Ramaphosa is determined to break down the rule of law in our country." While Kubayi was not present to receive the memorandum, a representative met the marchers on her behalf.
