The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has been slapped with an appeal against an alleged botched investigation, with the complainants in the matter raising concerns about its ability to fulfil its constitutional mandate.
The appeal challenges an investigative report issued by the human rights watchdog’s North West office last month concerning lease allocations at Hartbeespoort Dam, managed by the department of water and sanitation (DWS).
The report confirmed allegations of systemic racial discrimination and administrative failures in the allocation of state-owned land along the dam shoreline, with black applicants consistently sidelined while white occupants retained access to prime land.
However, the complainants in the matter, the Hartbeespoort Community Development Initiative (HCDI), representing more than 42 black lease applicants, rejected the report outright and accused the SAHRC of failing to fully investigate the complaint.
Complaint ‘misframed’ by SAHRC
SAHRC provincial manager Shirley Mlombo informed all parties in a letter dated 28 November that the investigation was considered closed and called on any dissatisfied party to lodge an internal appeal within 45 days.
HCDI leader Mmeli Mdluli said at the heart of their appeal is that the SAHRC misframed their complaint, narrowing it to technical issues around historical permission to occupy revocations, while ignoring central allegations of systemic racial discrimination, retaliation and prolonged maladministration affecting black applicants for over a decade.
According to the appeal, the commission ignored vast volumes of evidence, including a 209-page submission by SEZ Africa and a separate 400-page complaint by HCDI.
Mdluli said “neither document was meaningfully analysed or referenced in the final report, rendering the investigation procedurally unfair and irrational under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act”.
He said of particular concern is the SAHRC’s alleged failure to investigate constitutional rights violations, including equality, dignity, and freedom from racial discrimination.
The appeal states that despite detailed evidence of racial exclusion, intimidation and preferential treatment of white applicants, SAHRC made no findings on whether such conduct amounted to direct or systemic discrimination.
The appellants also criticised the SAHRC for mischaracterising the discrimination as “indirect”, despite evidence of preferential allocation, application “leapfrogging” and alleged conflicts of interest involving departmental officials.
Calls to set aside report
Beyond the individual case, the appeal, dated 9 December, warns that the failures have broader implications.
Mdluli pointed out in the appeal that with DWS controlling land around about 300 state dams in the country, the commission’s alleged inaction risks entrenching systemic exclusion and undermining public confidence in constitutional oversight bodies.
He said they approached SAHRC because it was constitutionally tasked with safeguarding against institutional bias, administrative abuse, and the silencing of marginalised voices.
Mdluli argued that the interests of justice, constitutional accountability and institutional integrity require that the appeal be upheld, the findings be set aside and the matter be reconsidered through a lawful, independent, and comprehensive investigation.
He said anything less would amount to a failure of constitutional protection at the very point it was most required.
“Where credible allegations of discrimination, corruption and maladministration in the allocation of land associated with about 300 state dams are met with silence or superficial treatment, the harm is compounded – extending beyond the complainants themselves to the integrity of constitutional oversight and public confidence in accountability institutions,” said Mdluli.
“For these reasons, the complainants respectfully submit that the report cannot stand.”
The appeal calls on the SAHRC’s head office to set aside the report, reopen the investigation, and consider referral to the Equality Court; a test of whether the commission can still act as an effective guardian of human rights when confronted with allegations of institutional racism and abuse of public power.
The commission has not confirmed receipt of the appeal but spokesperson Wisani Baloyi has previously defended the investigation and strongly dismissed claims of dereliction of its constitution duties.
NOW READ: SAHRC exposes racial bias in Hartbeespoort land leases
About the Author
