A FAMOUS GROUSE

IT’S a thirsty business, chairing the South African Human Rights Commission and, according to those who work there, their boss, Chris Nissen, apparently knows all about it. 

A recent media report reveals that, in a recording of a recent meeting with staff, Nissen “audibly slurs his words” and becomes “increasingly incoherent”. 

This meeting, on November 4, was held after Nissen, a former ANC Western Cape chair, and commissioner Phililie Ntuli were called before Parliament’s justice portfolio committee after SAHRC staffers had approached the committee complaining of a “toxic” work environment and seeking assistance and protection against Nissen and Ntuli.  ___STEADY_PAYWALL___

Nissen later explained his floopy speech to Daily Maverick: “I had been speaking for hours and yes, my voice may have sounded and as a matter of fact, been strained.”

The publication offered examples of this strain. On one occasion Nissen tells staff, “There are people in this organisation that are seeking to demise [sic] me.” Later, he adds, “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.”

We can sympathise. Here at the Slaughtered Lamb (“Finest Ales & Pies”), we have also been known to speak for hours, sometimes in a coherent manner although only at first, before succumbing to strain. Under pressure, under the table — it’s all work as far as we’re concerned, and someone has to do it.

It’s worth noting that Nissen had also allegedly been strained when, on a Sunday afternoon in January 2015, he was pulled over in his Porsche Cayenne, breathalysed and arrested at a metro police roadblock. He was one of 65 motorists, according to the City of Cape Town, who had been arrested for driving under strain that weekend.

But back to a more recent strain. It’s now claimed that the SAHRC’s report into the causes of the devastating unrest of July 2021 had been doctored to protect former president Jacob Zuma. 

This is hardly surprising. The report was widely condemned at the time of its release in January this year, with many commentators slamming the SAHRC for not investigating the “compelling" evidence linking the violence to Zuma. One of them, Professor Brij Maharaj, the deputy president of the SA Hindu Mahasabha, told TimesLIVE: 

“It will be interesting to know how much of scarce public resources was used by the SAHRC to produce an inconclusive 252-page report about who ‘orchestrated’ the July 2021 riots. The commission failed dismally to probe and identify the conductors of the orchestra.

“The commission ignores compelling evidence literally from the horse’s mouth …When applying for an indefinite postponement of his corruption trial in April 2022, Zuma’s lawyers referred to the July 2021 riots and stated it was ‘an open secret that the series of events were partly motivated or sparked, to whatever extent, by a sense of public outrage at perceived injustice and special treatment of Mr Zuma before the law in breach of section 9 (1) of the constitution’.”

It now appears that SAHRC investigators had not, in fact, ignored this evidence. Senior commission sources told Daily Maverick that a “clear line” between the violence in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng and Zuma’s incarceration for contempt of court had been identified in the original version of the report. This link had however been removed, primarily at the insistence of Nissen and Ntuli.

Bafflingly, the released version stated there was insufficient proof to connect Convict Number One with the violence and fatuously declared: “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.”

This was in marked contrast to the findings of an earlier investigation into the causes of the unrest. That probe, commissioned by the presidency and released in November 2021, found that:

“Based on the submissions we received as well as testimonies from many interlocutors we interviewed, including members of the executive and senior officials in the security services, the rejection of the decisions of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture (Zondo Commission) by former President Jacob Zuma was a major factor in the build-up to, and the actual violence and looting experienced in July 2021. The back and forth between the former President and the Zondo Commission played out over a period of at least eight months, from November 2020 to June 2021, when the former President was sentenced to a period of 15 months’ imprisonment for failing to appear before the Commission.

“As the deadline approached for the former President to hand himself over to the authorities or face arrest, his supporters, who mobilised largely on social media, called upon people to, among others, make the country ungovernable; physically prevent his detention; and remove President Ramaphosa from office. According to many of the submissions we received, the incarceration of the former President at a correctional facility in Estcourt, was the spark that ignited the orgy of violence that followed.”

Nissen has reportedly admitted that he had prevented the commission from making a similar finding. He told Daily Maverick, “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.”

He further claimed that some commission members did, indeed, attempt to “influence the outcomes” of the SAHRC report to tally with the findings of the presidency’s probe. But, together with Ntuli and others, he had “strongly opposed what was an attempt to politically influence” the commission’s investigation.

Nissen is known for such steadfast resolve. A gushing Sunday Times profile, published on Human Rights Day in 2021, described him as “the man protecting our dignity” and revealed that, while it’s not one of his designated responsibilities, he “steps in when people come to him with ‘urgent complaints’ that cannot wait for the official process outlined in a manual as thick as a Bible”.

Which is all very well, and give him another Bells, but I wonder about this official process and what this manual may have to say about inconvenient truths. There must be guidelines in this regard in that hefty volume, presumably alongside chapter and verse on the need for the commission to be a non-aligned institution, independent of political parties. 

Still, in having not gone by the book in this particular urgent complaint, it does seem a bit odd that it took more than two years for the SAHRC to produce their report. Perhaps this was down to yet more strain. 

The commission’s leadership is due back in Parliament next Friday, this time to present MPs with a “turnaround strategy” on the SAHRC’s seemingly toxic institutional culture. I’m not altogether optimistic that matters there will improve anytime soon. The glass, you could say, is somewhat less than half full.

On the plus side, sort of. . . 

The SAHRC meanwhile continues to fulfil its constitutional mandate to promote the protection, development and attainment of human rights in the Republic and remains true to its stated objectives of creating and fostering a national culture of human rights through its advocacy, research and legal functions. 

Just last week, for example, it announced that it had called on the Meta Oversight Board — the people who supposedly moderate content on Facebook — to ban images of the apartheid-era flag on the social media platform on the grounds that it constitutes “hate speech”.

Rational people may think this a waste of time or a sideshow at best, given that the SAHRC could instead devote attention to more urgent matters. Like Gauteng’s water crisis, for example. July 2021 will seem like a picnic compared to the upheavals that will come when the taps run dry, and the commission should be screaming itself hoarse in this regard. 

Instead, it points out that the MOB had, in October 2020, ruled that Holocaust denialism was hate speech and such content must be removed from Facebook. “The apartheid regime, like the Holocaust, has been classified as a crime against humanity,” the SAHRC argues. “Therefore, [Facebook owners] Meta must adopt a consistent approach and remove all apartheid-related symbols, which similarly glorify atrocities.”

They further claim that, as a symbol, the flag has “harmful connotations”. This may be, and it’s quite possible that the mere sight of one may trigger fears of apartheid’s return and the dawn of a new dompas era but, frankly, it would probably be more helpful if the SAHRC simply stopped infantilising citizens. 

Bewilderingly, the commission boasts that it is “finalising a lexicon of harmful symbols and phrases specific to the South African context, which can be a valuable resource for Meta in moderating such content”. One of these symbols is the “thumbs up” emoji.

I’m sure that Meta will be grateful for the input. I can’t wait to see the completed list myself, the compilation of which, I’m convinced, will involve yet more strain. 

The defence of the old flag, by the by, is not a hill on which I’d choose to die. I will add, though, that I cannot recall the last time I saw an image of the rag on Facebook. South African groups on the platform tend to identify with the new flag. 

But if the SAHRC wishes to grapple with hate speech on social media, they should be looking at Twitter, or X, as it’s now known. Since its acquisition by Elon Musk, now the de facto vice president-elect of the United States, the platform has become a sewer of hatred and vile conspiracy theories. 

Those who defend X and its commitment to the right to free speech should get off the internet and practice such free speech in real life. Pick a fight, for example, with a total stranger at the supermarket. Say something like, “Hey Pig Face, who dressed you this morning?” The less aggressive, who may even have done their own medical research here, could try instructing doctors about the myths of measles and polio. Better still, why not simply bellow at an oak tree, telling it that it knows nothing about acorns?

Should, however, the deluge of hatred and stupid on X be too daunting for the SAHRC to tackle, perhaps it could instead look inwards and focus on recent utterances by the aforementioned commissioner, Phililie Ntuli. I’m sure that, given a safe enough space, she would be able to satisfactorily explain charges that she wants to incite racial tensions against those of Indian descent.

According to Daily Maverick, a senior SAHRC manager who petitioned Parliament in this regard wrote, “During a monitoring visit to Tongaat [in June 2024] 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.”

It was also claimed that, when visiting a KZN 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”. 

In her response, Ntuli said she was questioning the principal about “his experiences of transformation” because “there did not need to be an active complaint for such a question to be asked”. She 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.”

I’ve no doubt that the principal spent an “inordinate time” in his engagement with Ntuli, possibly fearing that he was dealing with someone who had, let’s just say, a very firm agenda and a determination that others should reach her own conclusions.

But, to be fair, Ntuli can be quite helpful when it comes to other human rights. Last month, for instance, she penned a thoughtful and constructive article for City Press in which she argued that food is an important part of a balanced diet. And, seriously, who could argue with that?