The untouchable Saint of Sandton: South Africa’s Albanese scandal - Tim Flack

Key topics:

• South Africa lawfully followed its courts but then denied it publicly.

• Justice minister and media misrepresented civil summons as political blunder.

• Albanese event exposed governance deceit, media complicity, and hypocrisy.

Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.

Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.

If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.

By Tim Flack

There are moments in political life so revealing that they strip away all pretence and expose the rot beneath the surface. The Francesca Albanese saga is one of them.

A government that preaches international law violated its own. A press corps that should question power instead became its accomplice. And a United Nations official, sanctioned by the United States for antisemitism, was treated like royalty in the only country that mistakes ideology for integrity.

South Africa did exactly what its domestic law required. It upheld the Superior Courts Act, authorised a lawful civil procedure, and then, the moment it became politically uncomfortable, it panicked and lied.

The Service That Never Happened

On 25 October 2025, Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories, took to the stage at the Nelson Mandela Foundation in Sandton to deliver the annual Mandela Lecture, a pageant of self-righteousness dressed up as moral leadership.

Read more:

Behind the scenes, the Department of Justice had authorised a Deputy Sheriff of Sandton to execute a private civil summons related to a U.S. case under Section 40(2) of the Superior Courts Act. It was a civil matter, not a criminal one, not a “court order” as misreported by journalist Iman Rappetti. It was an attempt at lawful process service, not an act of political theatre. The Sheriff never served her, never approached her, and never disrupted the event. The authorisation, however, existed, and that was enough to expose the government’s duplicity. In another version reported in News24, it was a foreign Government that tried to serve her. This was also not true.

A Government Caught in Its Own Trap

Within twenty-four hours, Minister of Justice Mmamoloko Kubayi issued a formal apology to Albanese, the United Nations, and the Nelson Mandela Foundation. They claimed the authorisation was “unauthorised” and blamed a “junior official.”

That was false.

The documentation proves otherwise. The authorisation was official, procedural, and properly issued. The Department of Justice had followed the Superior Courts Act precisely as it was designed. The government upheld its obligations under domestic law, only to disown them the moment it caused embarrassment.

From Compliance to Cover-Up

Kubayi’s department did its job and then tried to erase the evidence. Within hours, the DOJ verbally deleted all references to the authorisation, issued a vague apology, and allowed the press to spin it as a blunder. The public was told that a rogue official acted without approval, that South Africa had somehow been manipulated by “foreign interests.” None of it was true.

This was not confusion. It was a calculated cover-up. South Africa complied with its own legislation on Friday, then denied it on Saturday.

The Media’s Complicity

If South Africa still had a functioning press, this story would have led every headline. Instead, the media worked to sanitise the government’s narrative. Journalist Iman Rappetti was the first to misrepresent the incident, claiming a “court order” was being served. It was not. It was a civil summons, part of a private proceeding. The difference matters. Yet no correction followed.

Qaanitah Hunter then framed it as a “Maverick official at the department” while Daily Maverick dutifully republished Kubayi’s apology without question. None of them bothered to check the law, the process, or the authorisation itself. Not one outlet analysed what Section 40(2) of the Superior Courts Act actually allows, namely the reciprocal execution of civil procedures. They simply repeated what they were told.

No one from the DOJ, the supposed intellectual bastion of legal reflection, paused to ask how South Africa’s own justice department could be accused of acting illegally for following its own legislation. The story was lazily reduced to “foreign interference” or “Zionist manipulation.” The truth, that this was a lawful civil process, was ignored.

Adding insult to injury, random political organisations and activist groups with no legal standing, including the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation, were invited to comment. Some even aired reckless claims that a private lawyer had “paid off” the Sheriff to act on behalf of a foreign government.

The Telltale Comment

Even the event itself revealed the tension. During her speech, Naledi Pandor remarked: “I wish to express my sincere thanks to all those who stepped in when it seemed that we could not afford to host the lecture because those who normally support us became fearful of being in support of justice and freedom.” 

It sounded less like gratitude and more like confession. Sponsors had withdrawn, wary of associating with a U.S.-sanctioned UN official. Pandor painted this as moral cowardice. In truth, it was prudence. They understood the reputational and legal risk of hosting someone already flagged under U.S. sanctions. The “fearful” donors were not timid, they were responsible.

The Only Country That Apologises for Obeying Its Own Law

South Africa is now the only nation that apologises for following its own legislation. In any normal democracy, the Department of Justice would be praised for upholding due process. Here, it was condemned. A lawful internal action, performed in accordance with the Superior Courts Act, was recast as political heresy.

Here Francesca Albanese is not a sanctioned figure, she is the untouchable saint of Sandton.

A State That Lies to Protect a Myth

The Albanese affair is not about a misplaced file or a misfired order. It is about the collapse of integrity in governance. South Africa met its reciprocal international obligations under its own law, then pretended it had not. The Department of Justice executed its duty, then was forced to deny it. The minister changed tune. The media complied. The truth was suffocated.

This is not incompetence. It is a deliberate act of deceit.

If the ANC government ever wonders why it is treated as a global punchline, this is why. Serious nations do not apologise for obeying their laws. They do not rewrite reality to appease foreign activists. They do not let political embarrassment outweigh institutional integrity.

Read more:

South Africa complied with its domestic obligations under the Superior Courts Act, then manufactured a false narrative to conceal that fact. The press enabled it. Albanese walked away untouched, reimagined as the untouchable saint of Sandton.

This was not a blunder. It was a choice. A choice to deceive, to perform, and to protect a myth rather than defend the law.

The truth is simpler and more damning: the Albanese affair marked one of many moments South Africa showed it was a serious state. What remains is theatre, a performance where compliance is betrayal, truth is negotiable, and lies are the language of power.