By Simon Nare
Former president Jacob Zuma has filed an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg seeking to have retired Constitutional Court Justice Sisi Khampepe’s ruling in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) cases inquiry declared invalid and unconstitutional.
Zuma is challenging Khampepe’s decision to dismiss his application for her recusal as chairperson of the commission investigating allegations that attempts were made to stop the investigation or prosecution of TRC cases.
He wants the ruling reviewed and set aside on the principle of legality and has asked that the matter be heard on an urgent basis on 17 March 2026, or earlier.
Zuma argues the matter should be finalised before the commission concludes its proceedings, saying Khampepe could use her powers to subpoena him.
He said he wants to avoid a situation similar to the Zondo Commission, where he walked out and was later convicted of contempt of court.
“As against the first and/or second respondents, the main relief sought is to review and set aside the decision of the chairperson of the commission to dismiss the application for her recusal from her current position as a member and/or chairperson of the commission, which decision was made on 30 January 2026,” Zuma said in his court papers.
“The factual matrix in this matter is largely common or undisputed between the parties. It is anticipated that the main dispute will be on the legal conclusions which arise from the admitted facts.”
Khampepe, the commission secretary and evidence leader Advocate Ishmael Semenya — who are cited as respondents — have five days from receipt of the papers to file answering affidavits should they intend to oppose the application.
In her ruling, Khampepe said both Zuma and former president Thabo Mbeki had failed to establish any reasonable apprehension of bias, either on the facts or in law, and “fell remarkably short of displacing the presumption of judicial impartiality”.
“The claims, by both former Presidents Zuma and Mbeki, are based simply on generalised suspicions and claims, with no attempt to state what I did or when during those times, that is relevant to the work of this Commission,” she ruled.
The applications relied on Khampepe’s prior service on the TRC Amnesty Committee and her role as deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions.
Both former presidents argued that her involvement in those institutions could give rise to reasonable bias.
Khampepe rejected the contention, saying the scope of the inquiry did not require her to revisit or defend decisions linked to the TRC’s prosecutorial recommendations.
“The question of whether apartheid-era crimes should be prosecuted is not before this Commission, and therefore the recommendation of the TRC that offenders who were not given amnesty must be prosecuted does not have to be defended or justified. Nor should such questions feature at all in the work of this Commission,” she said.
She also dismissed claims relating to her work at the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), saying the applicants had provided no evidence linking it to the current proceedings.
“Furthermore, there is no evidence at all to suggest that my work at the NPA during 1998–1999 is somehow of direct relevance to the present work of this Commission. Again, they allege but fail to produce the proof,” she ruled.
INSIDE POLITICS