Fixing the House: South Africa’s Priorities Amidst International Criticism
The paradox is that the South African government, instead of first strengthening its domestic policies and justice system, is busy pursuing international cases at the ICC.
Written By: Nkanyezi Ndlovu
South Africa is grappling with the aftermath of the murder of a key witness in the state corruption commission of inquiry. The killing has brutally exposed weaknesses in the witness protection system and raised serious questions about the government’s management of the justice system. At the very moment when citizens are desperate for safety and accountability at home, the government has chosen to focus its attention abroad.
In 2023, President Trump accused the South African government of committing what he called genocide against the white community in South Africa. He argued that white people are killed with impunity, mainly by blacks, and that some are even illegally evicted from their land with the support of the government. President Ramaphosa denied all the allegations, insisting that reported killings in the country are acts of pure criminality rather than evidence of a broader genocidal campaign.
Yet these accusations, however controversial, sit uneasily alongside the government’s decision to take other countries to international courts for alleged human rights violations.
On 17 November 2023, the South African government, through its Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), laid a formal complaint to the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Israel. The government has been accused of pursuing international cases at the expense of its own people. The ICC case against Israel has been criticized as self-serving and a pursuit of global relevance. The complaint includes allegations of murders and unlawful attacks on civilians, as well as crimes involving the denial or violation of basic human rights.
This is where the contradiction becomes stark. At home, a key witness in a high-profile corruption inquiry is gunned down after implicating senior officials. Abroad, the same government presents itself as a champion of human rights and accountability.
The murder of Witness D of the Madlanga Commission has raised pressing questions about the government’s true commitment to eradicating crime. The witness had implicated top officials, including the suspended Ekurhuleni metro police chief, in a murder cover-up. The killing took place barely a month after he testified, having pointed to a cover-up of a murder case and reportedly implicating suspended Ekurhuleni metro police chief Julius Mkhwananzi.
The paradox is that the South African government, instead of first strengthening its domestic policies and justice system, is busy pursuing international cases at the ICC. The ICC case has nothing to do with South Africa’s internal safety crisis but appears self-serving: a pursuit of global relevance at the expense of its own people.
According to the global crime index, South Africa ranks among the top 10 most criminal countries in the world, while Israel ranks among the lowest. This indicates that the South African government under the ANC has a great deal to learn from Israel when it comes to combating crime. Yet instead of examining what works in safer societies and applying those lessons at home, South Africa targets Israel in international forums.
Recent crime statistics have shown that the murder rate has dropped, but the reality remains grim. There were still 63 people killed on average every day. Acting Police Minister Firoz Cachalia released the long-awaited crime statistics for April 2025 to June 2025 and for July 2025 to September 2025. The national murder rate between April and June 2025 shows a decrease of 6.9%, while murder statistics between July and September show an 11.5% decrease.
Major General Thulare Sekhukhune shared the latest crime stats during a media briefing in Pretoria:
“We start with the murder. In the current quarter two, we have recorded 751 fewer murders compared to the previous period. In the previous period, we had 6,545; currently, we are at 5,794, and the percentage reduction is 11.5%.”
Even with these improvements, South Africa still has the fifth-highest crime rate in the world. The country has a notably high rate of assault, rape, homicide, and other violent crimes. This has been attributed to several factors, including high levels of poverty, inequality, unemployment, social exclusion, and the normalization of violence. More than one in four men surveyed by the South African Medical Research Council admitted to committing rape. These are not abstract statistics; they are a reflection of a society in which violence has become routine.
In that context, the recent murder of a state witness is not just another crime statistic - it is a signal failure of the state to protect those who help expose wrongdoing. It proves that the government is not sufficiently committed to eradicating crime in the country. It also comes barely a month after the G20 summit, which US President Trump boycotted, citing supposed genocidal tendencies in South Africa against the white minority. Was President Trump right? These are critical questions that, considering facts on the ground, one is justified in posing.
While Israel is a country at war, South Africa is not. Yet the daily murder levels in South Africa are shocking. According to Crime SA, at least 60 people are murdered daily. While President Ramaphosa denied the allegations of genocide, the real question should be: how many people have been killed by law enforcement in the country and gone unreported? Is failing to grant witnesses adequate protection not, in itself, a violation of a basic human right? A porous witness protection system makes it difficult for victims and whistle-blowers to trust that justice will be served.
In reality, South Africa is a very unsafe country. The policing model is porous, allowing many casualties and abuses to happen unnoticed. South Africa has a sovereign right to approach the ICC with its concerns, but given its own record, it should arguably be the last country to accuse the State of Israel of human rights violations. One can argue that South Africa needs to put its own house in order before pursuing international cases that have little bearing on the daily lives of ordinary South Africans.
Gaza, through its military wing Hamas, is at war with Israel. In war, casualties are tragically normal: people die, families are displaced, and societies are torn apart as peace is pursued. Calling Israel a genocidal state in its pursuit of self-defence in the face of terrorism is, in this view, unjustified, unfair, and a travesty of justice.
The core issue is not whether South Africa may comment on global conflicts. It is whether a state that cannot protect witnesses, curb violent crime, or guarantee the basic safety of its citizens should be leading the charge at international courts. Until South Africa can ensure justice and security within its own borders, its moral authority to take others to the ICC will remain deeply contested.
Nkanyezi Ndlovu is a Zimbabwean international human rights activist with experience in migration, human rights, and climate change matters.
Weird argument. I fully agree with you about the failures of our government, but to say that the government cannot champion human rights abroad because of these failures does not immediately follow for me, in fact supporters of Israel often make the opposite argument when it comes to Iran, Cuba and African states (a better argument would be to point out the hypocrisy in refusing to condemn Chinese, Iranian, Cuban etc human rights violations). I disagree in general with government placing human rights at the center of its policy towards any country, that's why I oppose the ICJ case and in fact I want SA to leave the ICC for the same reason (Israeli supporters were very vocal in their support for SA staying in the ICC, before the court went after Netanyahu).