S. Africa reopens inquiry into deaths of apartheid-era activists

President Cyril Ramaphosa set up a judicial inquiry in April following claims of deliberate delays in prosecuting apartheid-era crimes. (AP pic)
JOHANNESBURG : A South African court opened an inquest today into the murders 40 years ago of four anti-apartheid activists by a police hit squad in one of the most notorious atrocities of the apartheid era.
No one has been brought to justice for the 1985 killings of the so-called Cradock Four, and their families have accused the post-apartheid government of intervening to block the case from going to trial.
Teachers Fort Calata, Matthew Goniwe and Sicelo Mhlauli and railway worker Sparrow Mkonto were abducted and killed while returning home from a political meeting in the southern town of Cradock.
'After 40 years, the families are still waiting for justice and closure,' advocate Howard Varney, representing relatives of the four men, told the court in an opening statement.
'We intend to demonstrate that the deaths of the Cradock Four were brought about by way of a calculated and premeditated decision of the apartheid regime taken at the highest level of the government's state security system,' Varney told the court in the Eastern Cape city of Gqeberha.
The truth and reconciliation commission set up to uncover political crimes carried out under apartheid refused amnesty to six men for the Cradock Four killings.
This left them open to prosecution but the post-apartheid authorities took no action, Varney said.
This may have been in part due to a 'toxic mix of idleness, indifference, incapacity or incompetence' but the families also believed 'political forces intervened to block their cases from proceeding', he said.
'This inquest is probably the very last chance that the families will get to reach a semblance of closure. They deserve nothing less than a full and comprehensive accounting with the past,' the advocate said.
It is the third inquest into the Cradock Four murders, which came at the height of the white-minority government's repression of anti-apartheid activists.
Claims of deliberate delays in prosecuting apartheid-era crimes led president Cyril Ramaphosa to set up a judicial inquiry in April.
In January, 25 families of victims and survivors of apartheid-era crimes, including the Cradock Four, announced they were suing the government over a 'gross failure' to investigate and prosecute perpetrators.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Sun

4 hours ago

• The Sun

SIS Forum appeal not concerned with substantive beliefs, doctrine of Islamic faith, says Federal Court

PUTRAJAYA: The appeal by Sisters in Islam (SIS) Forum (Malaysia) does not concern the substantive beliefs in the religion of Islam, its mandates or doctrines relating to the Islamic faith but relates to the exercise of legal powers by certain state authorities, says the Federal Court in its judgment. Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said the challenge only concerned the review of the Selangor State Fatwa Committee, the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (MAIS) and the Selangor government's exercise of certain powers under the law, which is distinct from the substance and contents of their decisions. 'While it concerns a certain fatwa (religious edict), the case has neither to do with the substantive beliefs held in the religion of Islam nor does it have anything to do with the administration of the substantive aspects of the religion of Islam,' she said in the 40-page majority judgment. The top judge said in all civilised democracies with independent judiciaries, it is routine for the executive's decisions to be subjected to judicial review and in most cases, the subject matter of the exercise of discretion in the plaint is not the main issue rather the manner in which the decision was made. On Thursday, the Federal Court bench, in a 3-1 majority ruling, held that the 2014 fatwa issued by the Selangor State Fatwa Committee and gazetted by the Selangor state government is valid, but only insofar as it applies to individuals, not companies. The court ruled that a fatwa cannot be imposed on an organisation like SIS Forum as it is not capable of professing a religion. The ruling partially allowed the appeal by SIS Forum and its co-founder Zainah Mahfoozah Anwar to quash the 2014 fatwa, which had declared the group as deviating from Islamic teachings. In the written judgment released on the judiciary's website, Justice Tengku Maimun explained that the Selangor state government and the religious bodies are part of the executive branch and are empowered by the Federal Constitution and laws passed by the Selangor State Legislative Assembly (SLA). 'The fact that they deal with matters pertaining to Islamic faith, dogma and doctrine – are beside the point and these matters are, in any event, not within our purview (of the Civil Court),' she said. Justice Tengku Maimun said that under Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution, the Shariah Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matters within their scope. However, if the Shariah Courts act beyond their jurisdiction, they remain subject to judicial review by the Superior Courts. She reiterated that SIS Forum's legal challenge did not question the contents of the fatwa but the way it affected them. This, she said, involved constitutional importance and administrative law, which is for the Superior Courts to determine. The Chief Justice also reminded all judges that judgments of the Federal Court, unless overruled by a later decision of the same court, are binding and failure to abide by them is an affront to the administration of the justice system. In the judgment, Tengku Maimun also said a fatwa, once gazetted, carries the force of law and is not mere suggestion, and it is binding on all Muslims in the state and the Shariah Courts.

The Sun

4 hours ago

• The Sun

Federal Court rules fatwa not binding on SIS as company

PUTRAJAYA: The appeal by Sisters in Islam (SIS) Forum (Malaysia) does not concern the substantive beliefs in the religion of Islam, its mandates or doctrines relating to the Islamic faith but relates to the exercise of legal powers by certain state authorities, says the Federal Court in its judgment. Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said the challenge only concerned the review of the Selangor State Fatwa Committee, the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (MAIS) and the Selangor government's exercise of certain powers under the law, which is distinct from the substance and contents of their decisions. 'While it concerns a certain fatwa (religious edict), the case has neither to do with the substantive beliefs held in the religion of Islam nor does it have anything to do with the administration of the substantive aspects of the religion of Islam,' she said in the 40-page majority judgment. The top judge said in all civilised democracies with independent judiciaries, it is routine for the executive's decisions to be subjected to judicial review and in most cases, the subject matter of the exercise of discretion in the plaint is not the main issue rather the manner in which the decision was made. On Thursday, the Federal Court bench, in a 3-1 majority ruling, held that the 2014 fatwa issued by the Selangor State Fatwa Committee and gazetted by the Selangor state government is valid, but only insofar as it applies to individuals, not companies. The court ruled that a fatwa cannot be imposed on an organisation like SIS Forum as it is not capable of professing a religion. The ruling partially allowed the appeal by SIS Forum and its co-founder Zainah Mahfoozah Anwar to quash the 2014 fatwa, which had declared the group as deviating from Islamic teachings. In the written judgment released on the judiciary's website, Justice Tengku Maimun explained that the Selangor state government and the religious bodies are part of the executive branch and are empowered by the Federal Constitution and laws passed by the Selangor State Legislative Assembly (SLA). 'The fact that they deal with matters pertaining to Islamic faith, dogma and doctrine – are beside the point and these matters are, in any event, not within our purview (of the Civil Court),' she said. Justice Tengku Maimun said that under Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution, the Shariah Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matters within their scope. However, if the Shariah Courts act beyond their jurisdiction, they remain subject to judicial review by the Superior Courts. She reiterated that SIS Forum's legal challenge did not question the contents of the fatwa but the way it affected them. This, she said, involved constitutional importance and administrative law, which is for the Superior Courts to determine. The Chief Justice also reminded all judges that judgments of the Federal Court, unless overruled by a later decision of the same court, are binding and failure to abide by them is an affront to the administration of the justice system. In the judgment, Tengku Maimun also said a fatwa, once gazetted, carries the force of law and is not mere suggestion, and it is binding on all Muslims in the state and the Shariah Courts.

The Star

12 hours ago

• The Star

‘DNAA for Najib is appropriate'

KUALA LUMPUR: Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has been discharged without being acquitted (DNAA) of three counts of money laundering involving RM27mil linked to SRC International Sdn Bhd. High Court judge Justice K. Muniandy ruled that the order was necessary as the prosecution failed to show that they can proceed with the trial anytime soon. He said documents necessary to support the charges have yet to be procured, gathered and served on the defence. In his ruling, the judge said the trial was stalled with no clear indication when it would begin. The trial dates had been postponed for a myriad of reasons, including making time for the prosecution to procure and gather documentary proof in the case and making way for the RM42mil SRC International graft trial, the case that Najib is convicted of. 'This case against the accused has been pending in this court for a period of six years since 2019 and not an iota of witness testimony has been pursued with only a plethora of postponements indicating that the prosecution is not ready with the prosecution of the case,' Justice Muniandy added. He said once an accused person was charged in court, the charge could not be hanging over his head for an indeterminate or indefinite period. 'That would be harsh and illegal,' the judge added. Justice Muniandy also said that a DNAA order would not prejudice the prosecution's case as the prosecution could still pursue the case once it is ready to do so. 'By virtue of those factors, the most appropriate order is for this court to discharge the accused person without acquitting him, so that he is not saddled with the charges preferred against him,' he added. On Feb 3, 2019, Najib claimed trial to three charges of money laundering by accepting RM27mil from unlawful activities through three AmPrivate Banking accounts at AmIslamic Bank Bhd, Jalan Raja Chulan, on July 8, 2014. He was charged under Section 4(1)(a) of the Anti-Money Laun­dering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001. If convicted, he faces a maximum fine of RM5mil or imprisonment of up to five years, or both.