The Jacob Zuma Foundation has formally accepted a “narrow loss” at the Constitutional Courtfollowing a deadlock over the recusal of Justice Sisi Khampepe, while simultaneously announcing plans to launch a dual-front legal offensive involving criminal and ethical complaints.
In a media statement issued on August 31, 2026, the Foundation revealed that the apex court split down the middle with a 4-4 tie on whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias. The deadlock was ultimately broken against the former president by the casting vote of the presiding judge, Justice Owen Rogers.
Despite failing to secure the recusal, the Foundation expressed validation in the evenly divided bench, arguing that the support of four apex judges proves Jacob Zuma’s concerns were legally grounded and far from frivolous.
The Foundation also claimed victory on a crucial statutory interpretation, welcoming the court’s apparent affirmation of Section 47(1) of the Superior Courts Act. According to the statement, the court agreed with Zuma’s long-held position that this section applies strictly to judges executing judicial functions and cannot be broadly extended. The organization hailed this specific aspect of the ruling as a significant legal principle that it vows to continue defending in future public records.
However, the Foundation made it clear that the conclusion of the recusal litigation does not mark the end of the broader dispute. On the explicit advice of its legal representatives, the body is now preparing to escalate the matter through secondary institutional and constitutional channels.
First, the Foundation will lodge a formal criminal complaint with the South African Police Service (SAPS)targeting the conduct of the Commission’s chairperson. This complaint will focus heavily on allegations of improper note-sharing and the tactical coaching of an evidence leader on how to handle challenges to the chairperson’s authority. Second, it will file an official grievance with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) regarding Justice Khampepe’s ethical conduct, utilizing evidence and material that has already been placed before the courts.
While reiterating its respect for the authority of the Constitutional Court, the Foundation emphasized that it views the judgment as a narrow defeat on a single issue rather than a total dismissal of the systemic concerns raised by the former president.