All is not well at the SA Human Rights Commission. A weekslong Daily Maverick investigation reveals claims of political bias, racism — and a crucial report allegedly doctored to protect Jacob Zuma.
When the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) released its long-awaited report into the causes of the July 2021 unrest in January this year, one aspect of its findings stood out.
To the mystification of many, the SAHRC report concluded that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the 2021 unrest was linked to the jailing of former president Jacob Zuma.
“The commission finds that while the timing of the events of the July unrest coincided with the incarceration of former President Jacob Zuma, it could not find evidence to link the two events,” stated the report.
Now, senior SAHRC sources have told Daily Maverick that the original version of the report drew a “clear line” between Zuma’s incarceration and the violence — but this was removed, primarily at the insistence of the commission chair, Chris Nissen, who is a former ANC Western Cape chairperson, and Commissioner Philile Ntuli.
Hard to swallow
The idea that the violence and looting which broke out in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng two days after the jailing of Zuma was coincidental was hard for many to swallow.
Veteran KZN violence researcher Mary de Haas was just one of those who drew a “clear line” between Zuma’s detention at the Estcourt Correctional Centre and the chaos which erupted thereafter.
The Expert Panel appointed by the Presidency to look into the July 2021 unrest wrote in their November 2021 report: “According to many of the submissions we received, the incarceration of the former President [Zuma] at a correctional facility in Estcourt, was the spark that ignited the orgy of violence that followed.
One of these submissions was from former Gauteng premier David Makhura, who told the panel that he had met with police bosses before the unrest to share information he had received “about meetings taking place to discuss ‘resistance’ should former President Zuma be incarcerated”.
The State Security Agency further told the panel that in the months leading up to the unrest, “threat assessments emphasised the mobilisation by various groups who were in support of former President Zuma and possible imminent violence that could arise”.
Civil society organisations submitted that the violence had “been triggered by the arrest of former President Jacob Zuma, but the conditions of desperation led to many poverty-stricken people being caught up in the events”.
Yet the SAHRC report on the unrest, which took more than two years to produce, found that although the “intersection” of the July unrest with the jailing of Zuma “led many to conclude that the two are related”, this was unfounded.
That was despite the word “Zuma” appearing 112 times in the SAHRC report, largely because of the volume of witnesses who testified to the fact that the jailing of the former president was the direct trigger for the violence.
Two senior SAHRC sources speaking on condition of anonymity told Daily Maverick that the producing of the report deepened existing fractures within the organisation due to the insistence of Nissen and Ntuli that the SAHRC not link Zuma to the violence.
In a nine-page written response to Daily Maverick’s questions this week, Nissen acknowledged that he had prevented the commission from finding that Zuma’s incarceration was the trigger.
“The public’s trust and faith in us is important to the SAHRC. This is why I resisted attempts to pressurise us to blame Jacob Zuma for the July 2021 civil unrest in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng. We will not be bullied into making incorrect, scapegoating findings,” said Nissen.
He denied, however, that the original report had been edited to remove the finding that Zuma’s jailing was the root cause.
“There were attempts from some members of the commission to influence the outcomes of the report towards finding former President Jacob Zuma responsible for instigating the 2021 July unrest. Myself, Rev C Nissen, together with Commissioner P Ntuli, evidence leaders and researchers collectively and strongly opposed what was an attempt to politically influence the outcomes of an investigation of the commission.”
Nissen said that this “resistance” was “the reason why a malicious and vile smear campaign has been started against me”.
Multiple accusations against Nissen and Ntuli
The allegation about the 2021 unrest report is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the state of dysfunction within the SAHRC. A Daily Maverick investigation spanning weeks, including interviewing multiple senior current and past SAHRC employees, painted the picture of a Chapter 9 institution riven by internal discord. No staffers were willing to be named in this report due to fear of reprisals.
The two figures repeatedly fingered as major contributors to the toxic environment: Nissen and Ntuli.
Nissen is accused of having frequently told internal and external stakeholders that he was “deployed by Luthuli House” to chair the SAHRC — in other words, that he was sent by the ANC. As an independent Chapter 9 institution, the SAHRC is supposed to be scrupulously politically neutral.
Nissen told Daily Maverick: “I have on numerous occasions, and due to the public nature of my political history, declared my historical affiliation to Luthuli House as a means to emphasise and claim my impartiality and independence. Since joining the commission in 2017, I have also on various occasions held very senior members of the African National Congress accountable where human rights have been violated.”
Nissen was adamant that his past work with the ANC “has not impacted and will not impact on my impartiality”.
Another of the allegations levelled against Nissen, who was previously arrested for drunk driving, is that he is sometimes inebriated on the job. In a recording of an SAHRC meeting held on 4 November which was shared with Daily Maverick, Nissen audibly slurs his words.
Nissen told Daily Maverick in response: “I had been speaking for hours and yes, my voice may have sounded and as a matter of fact, been strained.”
In the meeting recording, an increasingly incoherent Nissen tells staff: “There are people in this organisation that are seeking to demise [sic] me.”
Later, he said: “I am no longer going to be beaten by people that wants [sic] to beat me. I cannot stand, I cannot stand them going against me for nonsense.”
At one point in the meeting, Nissen appeared to confuse the terms “homophobia” and “xenophobia”, saying: “We must defend women, we must defend people who are foreigners, so we can avoid homo … this whole issue against foreigners, we must fight against those who want to, um fight against, the issue about it.”
Staffers ask for protection
The meeting was held after Nissen and Ntuli were called before Parliament’s justice portfolio committee as a result of at least three SAHRC staffers writing to the committee to ask for assistance and protection against Nissen and Ntuli. Although their identities are known to Daily Maverick, we are not naming them as Parliament has not made their names public.
In one complaint, a regional SAHRC manager petitioned Parliament in apparent desperation after now-suspended CEO Vusumuzi Mkhize had recommended action be taken against Ntuli but nothing had followed.
Among the claims made against Ntuli by the manager were several alleged attempts to inflame racial tensions against people of Indian descent.
The manager wrote: “During a monitoring visit to Tongaat following the tornado disaster, Commissioner Ntuli claimed that Indian people received more aid than African people. However, staff who accompanied her on this visit stated that no such discrepancy existed, and aid was being distributed equally.”
Ntuli maintained to Daily Maverick this week that her visit to the Tongaat tornado site in June 2024 made it “very clear” that “the formal areas” — which she described as “more affluent areas … occupied by persons and families of Indian descent” — had received “either better, coordinated assistance, or more resources” than the informal settlements “occupied predominantly by African persons and families”.
The complaint to Parliament also alleged that when visiting a KwaZulu-Natal school, Ntuli “deliberately probed whether the African principal was being discriminated against by educators of Indian descent, despite there being no complaints or evidence to support such claims”.
Ntuli confirmed to Daily Maverick that she asked the black principal in question about “his experiences of transformation” because “there did not need to be an active complaint for such a question to be asked”.
Ntuli added: “Neither is there anything wrong about such a question in a conscious, and deliberately transformational society. The principal was expressively thankful to be asked this question and spent an inordinate time actively engaging the matter.”
In the subsequent report on these complaints and others by then CEO Mkhize, he indicated that “all” members of staff of the KwaZulu-Natal office had submitted “a list of grievances” against Ntuli. “The staff have, on record, indicated that they all submitted their issues as a collective,” he said.
One of the grievances was the perception that Ntuli’s approach was that of believing that “racism can be fixed with racism, and sexism can be fixed by sexism”.
No disciplinary action
The CEO recommended that the SAHRC chair “take the necessary steps” in terms of disciplinary action against Ntuli. Nothing, however, appears to have been done — exacerbating the sense within the SAHRC that Nissen and Ntuli are in cahoots.
Ntuli confirmed to Daily Maverick that she was the subject of a collective grievance and subsequent investigation by the CEO, but said that protocol had been flouted all around.
“No member of the secretariat has the power or duty to ‘probe’ the conduct of a commissioner,” she said.
When Nissen and Ntuli appeared before Parliament on 1 November to address the complaints before them, Nissen asked the justice committee for a closed sitting — in other words, one which no journalists or members of the public would be allowed to witness. His request was denied.
Ntuli maintained to MPs that the allegations against her were “politically motivated” and accused staff members of trying to “evade consequence management by running to the committee with false allegations”.
She said she was “concerned about [her] physical wellbeing and safety”, prompting a number of committee members to suggest that a security assessment be carried out.
At the SAHRC meeting held later that week, a recording of which is in the Daily Maverick’s possession, Nissen railed against staffers approaching Parliament.
“When you encourage a union member to go to Parliament, you are destroying this organisation. Why do you want to go and destroy this organisation? Can we avoid this thing about wanting to have issues against women? Why do you want to go to Parliament on [sic] a woman?”
At the same meeting, Nissen also told the SAHRC that staff at other Chapter 9 institutions were being better remunerated.
Nissen said: “[At] IEC, Public Protector, they are being paid more than us, do you know that?”
CEO suspension muddies the waters
Significantly complicating the picture is the saga of now-suspended CEO Mkhize.
Mkhize was suspended around the end of September, ostensibly as a result of remarks he made in a virtual SAHRC meeting without realising his microphone was on.
Nissen told the justice committee: “I had a teambuilding exercise, and in that process the others were online; allegedly the CEO and one other secretariat member were talking about the GNU and talk about something about white people, and some remarks were made, and our colleagues were calling to say please mute, mute, mute…”
Mkhize is accused of then instructing a junior IT official to delete the meeting recording.
Nissen told MPs that there were also “other issues” with Mkhize, but did not elaborate at the time.
This week, Nissen told Daily Maverick that he had suspended Mkhize because the CEO was accused of “acts of serious misconduct, and which violate the policies of the SAHRC related to, but not limited to the wilful damage to company property; offensive behaviour; breach of company copyright in any form; misusing his position in the commission to promote or to prejudice the interest of any political party.
“The commission has also been made aware of a Public Protector South Africa report which was published in 2021 and which found Mr Mkhize guilty of maladministration and of violating the Constitution. The commission is investigating the matter, which it views in a serious light.”
The Public Protector report in question found that Mkhize, a former deputy director-general of Home Affairs, had together with three other officials “failed to exercise due diligence” when rubber-stamping former minister Malusi Gigaba’s approval of the citizenship of Ajay Gupta and his family.
But this was already known to the SAHRC, according to former chair Bongani Majola.
Majola told Daily Maverick that his notes from the interview indicated that Mkhize had indeed disclosed that he had been the subject of a Public Protector report and disciplinary action at Home Affairs.
“Given that the disciplinary action was not proceeded with and he then moved to Nathi Mthethwa’s [Arts & Culture] department without a problem, the panel did not think it was serious,” said Majola.
SAHRC insiders say that the rehashing of the Public Protector’s findings at this point is a convenient stick with which to beat Mkhize. Although Mkhize has his fair share of detractors, there is a suspicion that he has been targeted because of his attempts to buffer staff from the impact of Nissen and Ntuli.
The most toxic Chapter 9 institution
The SAHRC’s reputation as the most internally toxic Chapter 9 institution has been well known for some time, with Parliament’s justice committee repeatedly commenting on the high staff turnover. This culture pre-dates by some time Nissen’s installation as chair: he became chair only in November 2023, although he has been a commissioner since 2017.
Nissen sent Daily Maverick the results of an internal staff survey from 2021.
They revealed, among other findings, that only 50% of the staff at the institution at that time believed that “there is a non-political atmosphere at the SAHRC”.
Only 36% of staff agreed that “there is a good level of trust at the SAHRC”.
But Daily Maverick’s sources are insistent that the situation has worsened over the past few years, with the wrangling over the July 2021 unrest report creating a situation of warfare between commissioners.
On 29 November, the SAHRC leadership is due to appear before Parliament once again — to present a “comprehensive turnaround strategy” on the institutional culture. DM
Additional reporting by Tamsin Metelerkamp