South Africa: Sharpeville Massacre Indemnity Act 1961 Challenge

• Survivors and families of the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre have launched a class action against the South African government.
• The lawsuit challenges the Indemnity Act of 1961, an apartheid-era law that shielded the state and police from prosecution for the massacre.
• The class action seeks to declare the Indemnity Act unconstitutional and invalid, which would allow victims to pursue compensation.
• The Sharpeville Massacre resulted in at least 91 deaths and 238 injuries when police fired on peaceful protesters demonstrating against 'pass laws'.
• Personal testimonies from survivors highlight the enduring physical and emotional scars, and the long-standing community demand for justice and compensation.

This legal undertaking directly targets the Indemnity Act of 1961, a piece of apartheid-era legislation that has historically shielded the state and its police force from accountability for the violence perpetrated during the massacre.

Survivors and the families of those affected by the tragic Sharpeville Massacre of 1960 have initiated a significant class action lawsuit against the South African government. This legal undertaking directly targets the Indemnity Act of 1961, a piece of apartheid-era legislation that has historically shielded the state and its police force from accountability for the violence perpetrated during the massacre. The class action seeks a declaration that this Act is inconsistent with the current Constitution and therefore invalid, aiming to pave the way for long-sought compensation for the victims.

The Sharpeville Massacre, which occurred on March 21, 1960, saw police open fire on a large gathering of peaceful protesters demonstrating against the discriminatory "pass laws" that mandated Black South Africans carry passbooks in specific areas. The brutal incident resulted in at least 91 fatalities and left 238 individuals wounded. Despite the profound impact of this event, the Indemnity Act, enacted the following year, effectively prevented any legal recourse for those affected, a situation that has persisted as the law was never repealed.

Adding a poignant dimension to the ongoing legal battle, activists, survivors, and family members recently undertook a "silent walk of witness." This commemorative event retraced the original protest route, culminating at the Sharpeville Memorial. Participants, some adorned with red paint and lying on the ground, symbolically depicted the victims shot in 1960, underscoring the enduring pain and the community's unwavering demand for justice and redress. Organizations like the Khulumani Support Group, which advocates for victims of apartheid crimes, were also present, with some of its members participating in the class action.

At the heart of this Sharpeville Massacre Indemnity Act 1961 challenge is the demand for the invalidation of a law that has remained operational for over six decades, effectively blocking Sharpeville survivors compensation class action efforts. Lawyers for Human Rights, the organization spearheading this constitutional challenge, asserts that the Indemnity Act continues to prevent legal action by survivors and dependants of those killed. Should the court declare the Act unconstitutional and strike it down, it would remove a major barrier, potentially allowing victims to pursue claims for compensation from the government.

The Indemnity Act of 1961 was specifically designed to indemnify police officers and the state from prosecution related to the massacre, thereby preventing any legal action by the victims or their families. This apartheid era law invalidation South Africa seeks is not merely symbolic; it is a critical step towards establishing state liability for historical injustices. The Lawyers for Human Rights Sharpeville litigation represents a direct confrontation with a legal instrument that has long denied justice to those who suffered under a brutal regime.

Vincent Thamae from Voices of Sharpeville highlighted the community's persistent calls for compensation for all victims over many years, acknowledging the arduous nature of this process. The current legal action aims to overcome the legislative hurdle that has historically frustrated these efforts, offering a potential avenue for South Africa historical injustice compensation.

The human cost of the Sharpeville Massacre and the subsequent legal impunity is vividly illustrated through the testimonies of those who lived through it. Sekolotsa Abram Mofokeng, now 86, was a participant in the 1960 protest, carrying his passbook to surrender it at the police station. He recalls singing songs like Mayibuye iAfrica and Senzeni Na before police opened fire, leaving him shot. Mofokeng was later arrested while recovering in hospital and still carries the bullet within his body, a constant physical reminder of that day.

Elizabeth Chabili, 77, was just 11 years old when she was sent home from school due to the unrest. While searching for her mother, who had joined the march, a bullet struck her hand, resulting in the loss of a finger and a lifelong struggle with her left hand. Chabili expresses a profound desire for compensation to address her disability, a sentiment echoed by many survivors. Ishmael Poho recounts the devastating impact of his father's death in the massacre when he was only six, describing the three-day search for his body and the subsequent hardship faced by his family. He seeks justice for his father's untimely death.

These personal narratives underscore the profound and lasting impact of the Sharpeville Massacre, making the current constitutional challenge to the Indemnity Act of 1961 a crucial moment for historical accountability and the pursuit of justice for apartheid-era victims. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for addressing similar historical grievances in South Africa.

This case establishes a critical precedent for challenging apartheid-era legislation that indemnified the state from prosecution, potentially opening new avenues for historical compensation claims. Lawyers in human rights, constitutional law, and public law should monitor this class action for its implications on state liability and the invalidation of similar historical statutes.

Source: Original reporting via GroundUp