Justice pays price of continued ICJ case

While South Africa is among the top five countries with the highest crime index, money has been taken from the national justice budget to ensure that the government sees the “genocide” case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to its conclusion.

Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ronald Lamola, said on 10 September that South Africa was determined to see the case through to its end, claiming that Israel’s conduct is “increasingly genocidal” and Gaza and Palestinians are being “wiped off the map”.

Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) Director-General Zane Dangor, who maintains that South Africa has an obligation to act, confirmed that the costs of the case were being shared between DIRCO, the justice department, and the presidency.

Ryan Smith, Democratic Alliance (DA) spokesperson on international relations and a member of Parliament (MP), says money taken (for the case) from the justice department was meant to pay for “crime intelligence services, investigating powers, and policing programmes to get dangerous criminals and repeat offenders off our streets”. This is a “critical endeavour”, given the wave of gun-related deaths on the Cape Flats. For example, a two-month-old baby died in a recent gang-related shootout.

Smith told the SA Jewish Report that he queried the costs of the case, given where the money was being taken from.

“Considering the recent National Budget passed in Parliament, which implemented sweeping budget cuts for baseline services, it’s crucial to determine what South African taxpayers have been forced to give up in order to pay for the case,” he says.

So, “Without debating the merits of the ICJ case, it does come at a financial cost,” Smith says. “We need to understand where taxpayer money has been reappropriated from services that South Africans depend on for their lives and livelihoods.”

African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) MP Steve Swart says he doubts litigation can end the war, “given the time period and the cost. This [the ICJ case] is [ultimately] going to cost R500 million to a billion rand. Surely, we could bring the parties to the table. Let’s find a solution to stop the killing in Israel and Gaza.”

South African Zionist Federation spokesperson Rolene Marks says the government “openly admits wasting more than R130 million on a grandstanding stunt whose sole purpose is to delegitimise Israel’s right to self-defence”.

This is “not only a cynical vanity project and propaganda gift to Hamas, it’s also a costly smokescreen to deflect from the ANC’s [African National Congress’s] failures,” Marks says. “This is ideological theatre bankrolled by South Africa’s poor.”

Lamola was addressing Parliament’s portfolio committees on international relations and cooperation, and justice and constitutional development last week. South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) political and youth liaison, Gabi Farber-Cohen, attended the meeting and approached Lamola afterwards, telling him that the SAJBD “truly wishes that South Africa would have taken a constructive role in peace building, rather than litigation”.

In addition, some local politicians pushed back, criticising expenditure on the case, now more than R130 million, and South Africa’s silence on Hamas’s atrocities. “Each political party was given equal opportunity to respond to the Cabinet’s decision to take Israel to the ICJ,” says Farber-Cohen.

The Economic Freedom Fighters; uMkhonto weSizwe; and Al Jama-ah were strongly supportive of the ICJ case “and forcefully called for further measures to be taken against Israel”, she says. “The Patriotic Alliance; the ACDP; and the DA challenged it, asking pointed questions about expenditure, double standards, and whether this path brings us closer to peace.”

She says the SAJBD will continue to engage with government, “because we remain committed to constructive dialogue and diplomacy in ensuring the voice of our community is heard”.

Swart questioned Lamola whether South Africa had “any idea” of the impact of the 7 October attacks on Israel and the Jewish people, and if it was aware of Hamas’s continued threats.

“Surely Israel has a legitimate duty to protect its people from an armed group that has openly declared its wish to annihilate it?” he asked. “There’s so little focus on Hamas and its role.”

As for possible famine in Gaza, which Swart described as “tragic”, he noted that “30 children die of famine in South Africa per day”.

He emphasised that “there is no finding of genocide against Israel”. Pointing out that the ICJ called on Hamas to release the hostages, he asked, “What has South Africa done to assist with [this]?”

Lamola went on to say, “We produced evidence of genocidal statements from prominent members of the Israeli government. Our case was rejected as populist, a blood libel, meritless, and baseless. There’s a growing body of consensus on whether what we are witnessing is consistent with statements of Israeli leaders.”

He said there was disbelief in the West about the genocide accusation because people asked, “How could people who look like us and sound like us possibly engage in genocide?” This “stems from denial [of] crimes associated with colonial violence. This denial is clearly at play in Palestine.

“Do some believe that Palestinian lives matter less?” the minister asked. “The international community cannot proclaim the importance of international law in some situations and not others.”

However, South Africa has remained silent in the face of other wars and atrocities and hasn’t taken any other country to the ICJ.

“South Africa instituted proceedings before the ICJ to preserve the existence of the Palestinian people as a group [and] to end all acts of apartheid and genocide against the Palestinian people,” Lamola said. “The case will continue until the court makes a finding.”

He called for a two-state solution, with “the state of Palestine and the state of Israel existing side by side in peace and security”. He also called for the release of the hostages held by Hamas, condemned the 7 October attack, and expressed condolence to the victims of the recent terrorist attack in Jerusalem.

In response to Lamola’s speech, Marks says, “Invoking international law while weaponising it against a democracy fighting for its citizens’ lives is a travesty. It cheapens our institutions, corrodes the meaning of justice, and signals to extremists that South Africa can be enlisted for their narratives. It also insults the intelligence of South Africans who know that fiscal discipline and moral clarity start at home.”

Dr Hussein Solomon, professor in the department of political studies and governance at the University of the Free State, says, “If there are orders already granted to South Africa by the ICJ, why are we investing more in this? The ICJ can only issue an advisory opinion.”

In addition, “Can we afford to antagonise the Americans and continue with this case given our ailing economy?”

International relations expert Dr Glen Segell says Lamola’s comments reinforce the direction of his predecessor, Dr Naledi Pandor. “This includes supporting terrorism; maintaining friendly ties with authoritarian leaders; and a fixation on criticising Israel.” As for Smith questioning the costs of the ICJ case, he says, “The DA is appropriately focusing on the needs of the South African people.”

Benji Shulman, the executive director of the Middle East Africa Research Institute, points out that “early in the ICJ case, the government claimed that the lawyers were acting pro bono”. Now, “it’s important to find out what is being paid for, and what benefit the South African public gains from the case”.

As for Lamola’s speech, Shulman says it indicates that the ANC “continues to push South Africa into the camp of authoritarian countries that are trying to reshape the global world order in their image”.