The Khampepe Commission, chaired by retired Justice Sisi Khampepe, was set up in May last year as an inquiry into delayed apartheid-era prosecutions. Now, almost 10 months and four weeks of hearings later, the commission’s work is being hindered by legal challenges.
Earlier this month, President Cyril Ramaphosa admitted in court papers that he had asked Khampepe to step down as the chairperson of the commission he himself had instituted. She refused, and the commission has since fired back, with its lawyers arguing in the Gauteng high court this week that the request was “illegal” and “unconstitutional”.
Meanwhile, two former presidents, Jacob Zuma and Thabo Mbeki, are also in court trying to force Khampepe out. On the other side are the families of apartheid-era victims. They’ve been waiting decades for accountability, and now, as they watch the commission potentially unravel, they are furious. It’s turning into what the Daily Maverick is calling a “recusal roulette.”
What is this commission, and why did Ramaphosa set it up?
Ramaphosa established the Khampepe Commission after litigation by the families of apartheid-era victims and the Foundation for Human Rights. Its mandate is to determine whether political interference or other efforts were made to halt investigations and prosecutions related to Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) cases.
The TRC, which ran from 1996 to 1998, was built on a clear deal: perpetrators of apartheid-era crimes could confess, apply for amnesty, and avoid prosecution. If they chose not to, they were supposed to be prosecuted. For the most part, that didn’t happen, and the majority of these cases were simply never pursued.
A total of 25 families and survivors of apartheid-era atrocities are taking part in the Khampepe Commission, which began its public hearings in late 2025. Among them is Lukhanyo Calata. He is the son of Fort Calata, one of the Cradock Four, a group of activists abducted and murdered by security forces in 1985. In his testimony before the commission, Calata pointed directly at Mbeki, arguing that during his presidency, cases were ready for prosecution, but nothing was done. His message was blunt: without people like his father, none of the men who became president after apartheid would have occupied that seat.
Thembi Simelane, whose sister, Nokuthula, was kidnapped near the Carlton Centre in Johannesburg, has also testified. She has said plainly that the democratic government has failed her family. This week, she was one of the voices calling out Ramaphosa for what she sees as an attempt to collapse the very process he created.
Who is Sisi Khampepe, and why do people want her out?
Retired Constitutional Court Justice Sisi Khampepe is one of South Africa’s most senior jurists. But her history is exactly what makes her appointment so contested.
In 1995, Khampepe was appointed by the late President Nelson Mandela as a TRC commissioner. The next year, she was appointed to the TRC’s amnesty committee. She went on to serve as deputy national director of public prosecutions from 1998 to 1999. The commission she now chairs is investigating what happened to TRC cases during precisely that period.
Here is where it gets pointed: Khampepe was part of the panel that refused amnesty applications brought by several ANC members, including former presidents Mbeki and Zuma. Both are now expected to testify at the commission. Both want her removed.
What Zuma and Mbeki are arguing
The former presidents allege that Khampepe’s background on the TRC and at the National Prosecuting Authority creates a material conflict of interest. Their legal teams argue she cannot fairly preside over an inquiry into a process in which she was directly involved.
Mbeki’s lawyer told the court that there had been no full disclosure of Khampepe’s role in TRC cases: “This court and us are in the dark about what her full role was in relation to TRC cases. You cannot leave the doubt lingering and continue sitting because you are undermining public confidence in the processes of the commission.”
Zuma has gone further. He claims a whistleblower revealed Khampepe colluded with the Khampepe Commission’s chief evidence leader, advocate Ishmael Semenya. According to the whistleblower, she allegedly advised him of weaknesses in his case and shared research material to strengthen his response, all while presiding over applications related to the same matter. The court has reserved judgment on Zuma’s application to compel disclosure of the alleged emails and WhatsApp messages.
Khampepe dismissed the original recusal applications in January 2026. That prompted Zuma and Mbeki to take the matter to the high court for review. Mbeki has gone so far as to ask the court to declare all decisions the commission has taken under Khampepe null and void.
What happened when Ramaphosa weighed in…
Court papers show that Ramaphosa asked Justice Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi to approach Khampepe to consider standing down, citing the controversy over her appointment and the damage to the commission’s public image. Khampepe declined.
Ramaphosa told the court that had he been aware of the allegations against Khampepe, he would not have appointed her. He filed papers saying he would not oppose her removal if the court ordered it.
The commission’s response was unambiguous. Its lawyers called Ramaphosa’s efforts to force Khampepe out “illegal” and “unconstitutional”, arguing that a president cannot informally pressure an inquiry chairperson from their role once appointed. To allow that, they argued, would make every commission of inquiry vulnerable to political interference.
The people who this actually affects
Simelane, reading a statement on behalf of the families, said the order of nullification sought in the review “risks forcing families to relive their trauma repeatedly through prolonged and duplicate processes”.
She noted that the commission has been running for more than nine months, held about four weeks of hearings, and cost at least R55 million to date, asking: “Why would the president be so willing to go down such a wasteful and reckless path?”
A Business Day editorial this week noted that Ramaphosa’s intervention is “insensitive to victims’ families and puts him on the side of Zuma and Mbeki”, both of whom are likely to be called as witnesses.
What happens next?
The high court is expected to rule on the review application. If it finds in favour of Zuma and Mbeki, Khampepe is out, and the testimony already on the record is in serious jeopardy. If it dismisses the challenge, the commission will continue, although further appeals remain possible. Either way, the inquiry will likely miss its mid-2026 deadline.
The commission was set up to answer one question: Were apartheid-era prosecutions deliberately blocked by the democratic government that was supposed to deliver them? That question still needs to be answered. But right now, it’s struggling to be heard over the grinding of the legal machinery, which has taken centre stage.
Tshego is a writer and law student from Pretoria. A keen follower of social media trends, his interests include high fantasy media, politics, science, talk radio, reading and listening to music.
He is also probably one of the only people left who still play Pokemon Go.
