Proposed Apartheid Bill could criminalise Israel ties

Local political party Al Jama-ah is working to have an “Apartheid Bill” passed into South African law, which could target anyone associated with Israel – even though Israel is a democratic state. 

In October, when the Bill was tabled, party President Ganief Hendricks stated, “Israel is an apartheid state and those South Africans who support it are therefore complicit and must face the full might of the law.” 

The Bill could allow South African courts to prosecute individuals, including dual citizens, accused of “committing or aiding” what Al Jama-ah calls “apartheid acts” anywhere in the world. In a statement, Al Jama-ah said the Bill would ensure that “a new era of accountability begins”. 

South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) National Director Wendy Kahn says this is “nothing more than a warped attempt” by Al Jama-ah to “exploit our painful apartheid history. Its ongoing stunts to demonise those with an attachment to the Jewish state is contemptuous. To misappropriate the term ‘apartheid’ is reprehensible.” 

South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) spokesperson Rolene Marks says the SAZF condemns the Bill as “one of the most reckless and dangerous pieces of legislation proposed in democratic South Africa”. 

However, in June, Hendricks called on South Africans to “report to the police” members of Parliament (MPs) who visited Israel as part of a private delegation. He labelled the MPs “suspects”, and laid criminal charges against them. There have been no further developments on those charges, but Hendricks is now driving this Bill, which could give them strength. He is supported in the initiative by seven other political parties, including the African National Congress, Economic Freedom Fighters, and uMkhonto weSizwe. 

Al Jama-ah said the Bill would “grant extraterritorial jurisdiction to South African courts to prosecute individuals, South African citizens, residents, or persons present in South Africa, for apartheid crimes committed anywhere”. 

If Al Jama-ah “attempts to insert its antisemitic and unconstitutional views into South African law, we will oppose it, using the constitutional protections in our country”, Kahn says. “We will work closely with our legal teams, experts, and partners in Parliament to combat any threats of this nature. Apartheid was a heinous crime against humanity. We oppose any attempts to weaponise it.” 

The Bill is a Private Members’ Bill (PMB), and its full title is the “Implementation of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid”. Through the Bill, Al Jama-ah wants to domesticate the 1973 United Nations (UN) Apartheid Convention into South African law. While South Africa recognises apartheid as a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute, this new Bill seeks to establish it as a stand-alone crime with broader, specific definitions and extraterritorial reach. 

On 14 November, Al Jama-ah MP Imraan Ismail-Moosa submitted a “notice of intention” to introduce the Bill to Parliament. The notice stated that the Bill should “take precedence over any other law that conflicts with it”. A month was provided for concerned parties to comment, until 13 December. 

Kahn says the SAJBD is “under no illusion” as to the “nefarious agenda of Al Jama-ah”. However, “this Bill is, at this stage, a notice of intention. In bad faith, Al Jama-ah has proposed this notice without including the proposed wording of the Bill, making it impossible to comment effectively on it.” She says it’s “devious” to do this without “transparently sharing how [the Bill] will be used”. 

The SAJBD “regularly comments on proposed Bills on behalf of South African Jewry, and will do so if and when the wording of this Bill is shared”, Kahn says. 

Independent practising attorney David Polovin told the SA Jewish Report that the Bill has “formal legal standing” in the Parliamentary process. It has “constitutional legitimacy” because a PMB is a “legitimate legislative mechanism provided for in the Constitution”. In addition, “converting international obligations into domestic law is a routine sovereign function”. 

While it’s “legally complex” to prosecute anyone for committing the “crime of apartheid” anywhere in the world, “this concept aligns with principles of universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity”, Polovin says. He says there’s a “strong possibility” that the Bill could be passed, “significantly more so than a typical PMB”. 

This is because this Bill “overcomes the primary obstacle for most PMBs – lack of political support”. 

“It’s supported by a powerful ‘secretariat’ of eight represented political parties. This broad coalition greatly increases the likelihood of the Bill passing through the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces,” Polovin says. “The ideological alignment of these parties with the Bill’s objectives lends it political weight that other PMBs typically lack.” 

At the same time, he notes that “historically, PMBs rarely become law in South Africa. Only two out of approximately 63 PMBs introduced in the past three Parliaments have been enacted.” 

Democratic Alliance spokesperson on International Relations and Cooperation, Ryan Smith, says “Al Jama-ah’s stated intent is already problematic. You cannot automatically equate a citizen’s support for a state, nation, or organisation with support for apartheid.” 

Furthermore, “trying to curtail or sanction this [support] is a violation of the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association, as enshrined in the Constitution”, Smith says. “From their intent alone, there seems to be a misunderstanding by Al Jama-ah as to the role of the UN Apartheid Convention; the South African Constitution; and the relationship between our domestic legal framework and the broader international legal order.” 

Marks maintains that though the proposed Bill “cloaked in moral language”, it’s a “political weapon designed to criminalise dissent and intimidate minority communities. By redefining ‘apartheid’ so broadly, and giving courts global reach, the Bill allows the government to police beliefs, prosecute thought, and persecute religious identity.” 

The Bill would “transform South Africa from a constitutional democracy into an ideological enforcer, turning innocent citizens into targets for nothing more than their convictions”, she says. 

At a time when South Africa “urgently needs stability and unity”, Parliament is “entertaining a law that will fracture society, inflame hatred, and erode fundamental freedoms,” adds Marks. “This Bill is a direct threat to every South African who values liberty, and it must be decisively defeated.” 

Advocate Mark Oppenheimer, an expert on hate speech, says that though the Bill looks like condemnation of apartheid, it’s “more plausibly a political vehicle aimed at targeting supporters of Israel”. This framing is “fundamentally misleading” because “Israel isn’t an apartheid state”. 

He says it’s “important to scrutinise the Bill carefully once its text becomes public”, and notes that “continued legislative attacks on Israel risk further isolating South Africa diplomatically, particularly from the United States and European Union. Such consequences would be detrimental not only to our foreign relations, but to the country’s broader strategic interests.” 

Local political commentator Tim Flack says legislation drafted or applied “with the purpose of singling out identifiable groups” for adverse treatment “violates constitutional principles”. A statute “cannot be tailored to criminalise lawful political, cultural, academic, commercial, or religious engagement with a particular country or community”. 

He says the Bill carries significant economic, diplomatic, and security implications. “Its extraterritorial provisions may deter investment, destabilise bilateral relations, reduce tourism, and create uncertainty for academic and commercial collaboration.” 

He feels it should rather be called the “Political Policing Bill” and says it “allows the state to reach into your opinions, foreign ties, business, and community life”. 

Dear South Africa, a non-profit platform that helps South African citizens participate in government policymaking, had more than 15 000 people sign a petition saying they don’t support the Bill at the time of publication. 

The petition can be signed at www.dearsouthafrica.co.za/apartheid-bill/