13th June 2020

Case number CCT110/19 is done and dusted and we are back at the ‘Drawing Board’. We all know that the Traditional and KhoiSan Leadership Act 2019 which is supposed to give recognition to the First Nation, is Unconstitutional! Our initial argument is that its unthinkable to receive recognition for the People of the Land in an Act, but you recognize those who found us here, they are recognized in chapter 12 of the constitution of the country, it is absurd to put it mildly. Policies like Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment, (BBBEE), Affirmative Action (AA) and Employment Equity leaves much to be desired. Infect, these policies are clearly aimed at excluding the Classified Coloureds in particular. So, President the next few court cases are in the Melting Pot. A case of discrimination, meaning Identity and Land loss is in the furnace for purity to be extracted.

The writing is on the Walls of South Africa for all to see that the Injustice towards the First Nation People, wrongly Classified as Coloureds and the misery of fellow Bantu-Nguni Africans who continue to suffer in this democracy, will not be tolerated any longer.

While busy with extensive research for the next few Constitutional Court cases, I stumbled upon a humbling reference to a case I submitted to the Con-Court on 23rd September 2016, used for analogy by former Constitutional Court Justice Edwin Cameron. If you have time, please read the following extract from a judgment – Daniels v Scribante and Another (CCT50/16) [2017] ZACC 13; 2017 (4) SA 341 (CC); 2017 (8) BCLR 949 (CC) (11 May 2017).

My excitement is based in both the fact that a sit-in Justice would use my submission in his analysis and equally that he clearly anticipated that the case will be coming back to the highest court for adjudication. It is most rewarding to read that he chastised me for being untidy or as he put it, ‘incomplete’, but that he equally concurred with some of what I submitted. Remember, I sat down over a four and a half months period, writing the case and it must be noted that I am not a legal eagle nor a paralegal.  This discovery is clearly a ‘Double portion Blessing’. I will give you a concise extract, here it follows:

“[150] All these cautions apply here.  An application that recently confronted this Court underscores them vividly.  An organisation styled the Indigenous First Nation Advocacy South Africa (IFNASA) lodged an application for direct access.[173]  The applicants said they spoke on behalf of “our communities also known as Boesman, KhoiKhoi or the collective labels KhoiSan (so-labelled Coloureds)”.  Their articulated demands included affirmation as an indigenous first nation; the restoration of their land rights; the repeal of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill, 2015; and the end of racism “against the Indigenous First Nation in the context of ‘Blacks but Africans in Particular’” in what they termed the context of government’s “decadent past fabricated identities”.

[151] By order dated 16 November 2016, the Court dismissed the application.  It was not in the interests of justice to hear it “at this stage because the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill, 2015 is still before Parliament, and the applicants have failed to show that they will have no effective remedy if the legislation is enacted”.

[152] Why all this?  To make an obvious point: that some of the very issues my colleagues have written about may yet come before this Court.  That application is one example.  And it invites an obvious caution, not only judicially, for what we have yet to decide, but more generally, about the perils of writing history.  Indeed, the Court’s very power to influence what the application calls our country’s “collective historical narrative” suggests a diffident approach, and a light footfall.


[153] And yet, despite all this – despite the caution, despite the perils, despite their partiality and incompleteness – I concur in both expositions.  I concur because the two

judgments do vital work at an important time in our country – a time of angry rhetoric and intransigent attitudes, whose perils exceed those of history and the frailties of its telling.

[154] The first and second judgments remind us all – and remind white people in particular, people like me, lawyers who grew up with the benefits, both accumulated and immediate, of their skin colour in a society that deliberately set out to privilege them, white people who are still the majority in the profession and probably still the majority readers of these reports – that the past is not done with us; that it is not past; that it will not leave us in peace until we have reckoned with its claims to justice.

[155] When important things are being said, when insufficiently heard truths are being spoken, it is bad to hide behind the indeterminacies of history and the inevitable incompleteness and partiality of its telling.  I concur in both the first and the second judgments.” …. CAMERON J

We would like to call upon everyone who would like to support the project of ‘Restoring the First Nation and Restoring Justice for All’ to inbox me or call me and make your contributions. We need different measures of support, so feel free to come forward as we design the New Nation where the First Nation is affirmed.


The Writing is on the Walls of South Africa, Justice is inevitable!

Anthony Phillip Williams

Indigenous First Nation Advocacy South Africa (IFNASA)

New Nation Movement (NNM)

066 250 4948