14 December 2025
Ms Angela Thokozile Didiza
Speaker of the National Assembly
Per email: [email protected]
For attention: Mr Imraan Ismail-Moosa
Per email: [email protected]
Dear Ms Didiza
Comments on the proposed “Implementation of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid” Bill
We refer to the invitation for written submissions on the proposed “Implementation of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid” Bill.
Umphakathi Okhathazekile (CYPSA) is a national non-profit and public benefit organisation, focused primarily on youth upliftment and work amongst grassroots communities nationally. We have to date motivated over one million learners nationwide via our awareness campaigns, in addition to many other activities conducted on a national scale and represent grassroots communities in all nine provinces.
1. OVERVIEW OF THE BILL
The Bill is explicitly linked to solidarity with Palestine and aims to target alleged apartheid practices in Israel and the Occupied Territories by domesticating the 1973 UN Apartheid Convention into South African law, creating a standalone crime of apartheid beyond what already exists under the Rome Statute Act.
The bill would in effect enable South African courts to prosecute anyone accused of:
– supporting Israel
– assisting Israel
– promoting Israel
– defending Israel
– or even speaking in favour of Israel
by classifying such support as an act connected to “apartheid.”
This would include citizens, dual citizens, organisations, religious organizations, churches, and individuals, even if the alleged “act” happened outside of South Africa. The bill is by its very nature problematic as one cannot automatically equate a citizen’s support for a state, nation, or organisation with support for apartheid.
2. LACK OF FULL DRAFT TRANSPARENCY
The bill was introduced without publishing the full draft but only a summary which is unusual and has been described as “devious” and “vague.” To have introduced the bill in this manner limits public oversight and has raised concerns about hidden clauses or lastminute additions.
3. SUMMARY OF GROUNDS FOR OPPOSING THE BILL
– It is procedurally irregular (no full draft).
– It uses vague, overbroad definitions that violate legality.
– It grants global jurisdiction beyond normal constitutional limits.
– It duplicates existing law to create a politically flexible tool.
– Its sponsors openly state it is meant to target political opponents.
– It risks criminalising speech, thought, dissent, and association.
– It expands state power over individuals, groups, and organisations without clear limits.
– It violates constitutionally protected rights and freedoms.
4. EXPLICITLY FRAMED AS TARGETING POLITICAL OPPONENTS
When the bill was tabled in October 2025, Al Jamaah party president Ganief Hendricks stated that “Israel is an apartheid state and those South Africans who support it are therefore complicit and must face the full might of the law.”
When lawmakers openly state that a criminal law is intended to target a specific political group, it raises serious constitutional red flags for the following reasons:
– Criminal law must be neutral, not ideological.
– Targeting political viewpoints violates freedom of expression and association.
– Using criminal law to punish foreignpolicy positions is political overreach.
5. POSSIBLE CONFLICTS WITH CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH AFRICA
The bill immediately exhibits multiple conflicts with the following provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, and should on these grounds, amongst others, be vigorously opposed.
5.1 Religious and cultural freedoms
The South African Constitution protects religious freedom through Section 15 (Freedom of Religion, Belief and Opinion) and Section 31 (Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities).
Section 15 of the Constitution states that everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, and opinion.
Section 31 of the Constitution provides that persons belonging to a cultural, religious, or linguistic community may not be denied the right, with other members of that community, to enjoy their culture, practice their religion, and use their language.
If passed, this bill would have the effect of criminalising any South African, including pastors, churches, Christian organisations, intercessors, and individual believers, who support Israel in any form as the tenets of the Christian faith provide that:
– there is no Christianity without Israel.
– there is no Bible without Israel.
– there is no Messiah without Israel.
– there is no salvation story without Israel.
To criminalise support for Israel in such a manner would be to criminalise Christian belief, because the foundation of Christian faith is rooted in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the Covenants, the Prophets, the Apostles, and the land from which the Lord Jesus Christ came.
The bill could be used to penalise positive references to Israel in certain contexts, and could therefore restrict the following Christian activities:
– Sermons
– Bible teaching
– religious education
– public worship
– Christian media
5.2 Freedom of expression
Section 16 of the Constitution grants everyone the right to express opinions, receive and impart information, and enjoy artistic creativity and explicitly protects freedom of the press and other media.
People are entitled to their own view, opinion of and attitude towards the state of Israel and this cannot be restricted to the extent that free thought about and support towards Israel will be criminalized by this proposed bill.
Journalists could be charged and prosecuted should they write a piece that is favourable towards the state of Israel and not in line with this legislation and individuals and organizations who make utterances which are interpreted as sympathetic to the state of Israel would face the same consequences.
The bill will equate to state dictated thought control via criminalizing free thought, speech, and opinion.
5.3 Freedom of association
Section 18 of the Constitution supports speech rights by allowing individuals to form groups and organizations to express collective views.
The bill could target anyone associated with Israel, including for activities done anywhere in the world. For Jewish communities as an example, this could include:
– Donating to Israeli hospitals, schools, or synagogues
– Attending religious conferences in Israel
– Hosting Israeli rabbis or scholars
– Supporting Israeli disasterrelief organisations
– Participating in Jewish Agency or Birthright programmes
The above examples of association with the state of Israel are normal expressions of Jewish religious and cultural life. Criminalising them would infringe on religious and cultural practices, community life, and international religious and cultural engagement.
6. RESTRICTION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
Section 36 (the limitations clause) ensures that laws must be necessary and proportionate when limiting rights and states that:
(1) The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, considering all relevant factors, including—
(a) the nature of the right.
(b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation.
(c) the nature and extent of the limitation.
(d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
(e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
The limitations of religious, cultural, and other rights that would manifest should this bill be brought into effect could never be said to be reasonable, necessary or a proportionate restriction of the rights concerned when balanced against the objectives the bill alleges to seek to achieve.
Section 36 therefore also indirectly discourages unnecessary or duplicative legislation, discussed below, as it requires that legislation having the result of restricting rights must be necessary legislation. However, instruments criminalizing apartheid activities already exist.
7. JURISDICTIONAL OVERREACH
The Bill seeks to give South African courts power to prosecute individuals for apartheid-related acts committed anywhere in the world. This extraterritorial reach could conflict with international law principles and strain diplomatic relations.
8. POLITICAL OVERREACH
The bill was introduced without a full draft which has had the effect of undermining transparency as this is highly irregular in legislative practice. It prevents meaningful public participation, which is a constitutional requirement, and allows room for lawmakers to introduce sweeping powers without scrutiny.
The bill seeks to expand state power using vague and broad definitions. The bill uses the 1973 UN Apartheid Convention, which contains extremely broad definitions of apartheid. Vague criminal definitions violate the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege). Overbroad laws foster an environment conducive to selective enforcement.
The bill would grant South Africa extraterritorial jurisdiction over global conduct when current domestic criminal law rarely extends this far. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is normally reserved for universally recognised crimes such as genocide.
Expanding jurisdiction in this manner gives the impression of an attempt to weaponize the South African justice system for political purposes and would therefore amount to an abuse of the criminal justice system and our courts.
South African legal scholarship and case commentary recognise a specific category of abuse of process: politically motivated misuse of courts, often called lawfare.
According to academic analysis on judicial independence, politically motivated abuse occurs when litigants use courts not to resolve genuine legal disputes, but to achieve political goals, such as weaponizing legal processes to influence public perception of which this bill would be a clear example.
Courts inevitably adjudicate politically significant disputes, but this is vastly different to abusive lawfare, where litigation is used strategically to achieve political ends rather than legal ones, which is the case in this instance.
The above are common indicators of political overreach and this bill would amount to a major expansion of state power beyond normal constitutional limits.
9. BROAD DEFINITIONS OF “APARTHEID”
The bill uses the 1973 UN Apartheid Convention wording, which is far wider than the Rome Statute definition already in South African law. This will allow the state to bypass the stricter, internationally aligned Rome Statute framework.
The definitions are so expansive they could apply to ordinary political speech, activism, or foreignpolicy position and this raises fears that the state will selectively interpret the law to target political opponents or unpopular groups, which has been publicly stated as their objective, by members of the party who intend to table the bill.
10. POTENTIAL FOR SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT
Because the bill is politically motivated by global solidarity with Palestine (as noted in public commentary), it could be used to:
– Target individuals or organisations with certain foreignpolicy views.
– Criminalise support for states accused of apartheid by some groups but not others.
– Silence political debate.
11. ENFORCEMENT BURDEN
Investigating and prosecuting alleged apartheid crimes abroad and at home will require massive resources, specialized expertise, and cooperation from foreign jurisdictions. Without this, prosecutions may collapse, damaging the credibility of South Africa’s justice system.
12. POSSIBLE IMPACT ON CIVIL SOCIETY AND DISSENT
Because the bill applies to individuals, groups, and organisations, it could be used to:
– Investigate NGOs, religious groups, or advocacy organisations.
– Criminalise funding, speech, or association that the state interprets as “supporting apartheid.”
– Expand state surveillance powers under the justification of monitoring “apartheidrelated activity.”
13. SCALING DOWN OF HUMANITARIAN WORK
Many churches and Christian NGOs provide humanitarian aid in Israel or to Jewish communities worldwide. If the bill treats such aid as “supporting apartheid,” churches may fear prosecution and withdraw from these activities.
14. DUPLICATIVE AND UNCESSARY LEGISLATION
South Africa already recognises apartheid as a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute Act (2002). This new Bill, which has the appearance of being politically motivated, runs the risk of becoming duplicative or unnecessary legislation.
South African law prevents duplication and unnecessary legislation through the Constitution and interpretive principles. When multiple laws regulate the same issue, courts, and citizens face confusion about which law applies. This undermines predictability and consistency, which are essential for the rule of law.
14.1 Legislative Drafting Practices
Bills are scrutinized to ensure they do not duplicate existing laws, and drafting guidelines emphasize clarity, necessity, and consistency with existing frameworks.
14.2 Negative Consequences of Unnecessary Legislating
Unnecessary legislating creates an administrative burden in that more laws mean more bureaucracy, compliance checks, and enforcement costs. This strains government resources and slows down service delivery.
It results in an erosion of public trust as citizens perceive over-legislation as government overreach or incompetence, which weakens confidence in democratic institutions and the legitimacy of the legal system.
Unnecessary laws clutter the statute book, making it harder to identify and implement meaningful and necessary reforms.
Overlapping statutes can contradict each other, forcing courts to resolve disputes that should not exist, slowing down justice and increasing litigation costs.
15. ALREADY STRAINED LEGAL SYSTEM
Prosecuting international cases as this bill envisions will burden South Africa’s courts and justice system.
With an inefficient and poorly functioning and under-resourced legal system, which is failing to prosecute domestic crimes such as rampant murder, it would be unwise and unfair to South Africans to focus on international law to target the state of Israel for political reasons.
16. POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES
16.1 Foreign relations strain
The Bill is widely seen as targeting Israel. Implementing it could escalate diplomatic tensions, especially with countries that oppose labelling Israel’s policies as apartheid.
16.2 Geopolitical isolation
South Africa risks being perceived as using domestic law for international political battles, potentially isolating itself from trade and diplomatic partners.
16.3 Domestic polarization
The Bill could deepen divisions within South Africa, as some groups may view it as politicizing lawmaking rather than focusing on pressing local issues.
17. ECONOMIC CONEQUENCES
17.1 Investor uncertainty
Extraterritorial criminalization may deter foreign investment, as businesses fear being implicated in politically charged prosecutions.
17.2 Resource strain
Prosecuting international apartheid crimes would require significant funding, expertise, and judicial capacity, diverting resources from domestic justice priorities.
17.3 Trade risks
Countries targeted under the Bill could retaliate economically, affecting South Africa’s exports and imports.
18. IRONY OF BILL FOSTERING “APARTHEID” WITHIN SOUTH AFRICA
The bill would disproportionately target and criminalize Zionist Jewish South Africans and their activities related to Israel and:
– Jewish organisations would be investigated
– Jewish leaders would face prosecution for statements or sermons
– Jewish schools would be scrutinised for teaching about Israel
– Jewish charities would be accused of “aiding apartheid.”
When a law is framed as targeting “those who support Israel,” and Jewish South Africans are the group most associated with Israel, it can:
– Increase antisemitic sentiment
– Encourage harassment or discrimination
– Legitimize suspicion toward Jewish institutions
The South African Jewish community would be branded as criminals and experience a form of segregation and ostracization along with anyone who expresses a pro-Jewish or pro-Israeli stance, and eventually even those who elect to remain neutral on the issue, in a manner reminiscent of the South African apartheid era.
When one considers the impact and effects of the proposed bill, the bill would create an instance of “apartheid” within South Africa, considering the effect on certain religious and ethnic groups within South Africa specifically.
Those claiming they wish to combat apartheid via the introduction of the bill would themselves be instituting apartheid within South Africa, via the introduction of the very same bill.