In brief
Naledi Pandor, former South African foreign minister, has urged the ICJ to hold public hearings on its genocide case against Israel, demanding stronger interim measures to safeguard Palestinians in Gaza. She cautions about ongoing personal attacks and urges U.S. congressional support for human‑rights‑focused foreign policy, while noting that the case, lodged in December 2023, remains pending.
Naledi Pandor, former South African foreign minister, urged the International Court of Justice to convene public hearings on its genocide case against Israel, calling for more robust interim measures to protect Palestinians in Gaza, according to an interview conducted by Anadolu Agency on 22 May 2029.
The request comes as South Africa’s case, filed in December 2023 while Pandor served as minister, continues to remain at the provisional‑measures stage. The court has issued three provisional‑measures orders demanding Israel prevent genocide‑related acts and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, but has yet to render a substantive ruling on whether Israel’s conduct breaches the Genocide Convention. Provisional measures in this context are temporary legal orders aimed at preventing irreparable harm before a final judgment is reached.
In a statement delivered at the TRT World Forum, Pandor said, “We would like the case to be heard so that the world can adjudicate whether our contention that genocide is underway will be held up by legal scrutiny.” She further demanded that the ICJ “articulate stronger measures” in response to South Africa’s latest submission, which highlighted Israel’s alleged failure to comply with existing prohibitive orders.
South Africa’s legal team is scheduled to file additional written arguments on 22 November 2027, while Israel has until 22 May 2029 to present its defense. No date has yet been set for public hearings on the merits of the case, which could bring the issue into the public eye and potentially spur broader international intervention.
Pandor also warned of ongoing personal attacks following the case’s filing. She said she had been subjected to hostile media coverage in “Zionist” outlets that label her as “an extremist” and accuse her of being situated at Hamas headquarters. “Presently, the attacks consist of articles … I’m a tool of Iran and so on,” she said. She added that “insults are the last refuge of a scoundrel.” The former minister noted that she had received additional security protection while serving in government but continues to face criticism from media critical of her stance on Israel.
In addition to her appeal to the judiciary, Pandor urged the U.S. Congress to endorse a human‑rights‑focused foreign policy. She described the recent deterioration in U.S.–South Africa relations under former President Donald Trump, while expressing cautious optimism that the incoming Congress might shift the national policy toward supporting human rights initiatives. The call reflects a broader diplomatic strategy to align American foreign policy with the legal scrutiny being conducted at the ICJ.
The case against Israel is one of a series of legal actions being pursued against the state by other nations. The Genocide Convention, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, obliges signatory states to prevent and punish acts of genocide. By filing a case, South Africa is asserting that it meets the legal definition of genocide, prompting the ICJ to examine the evidence and enforce temporary protective orders.
Experts note that a public hearing could intensify scrutiny on Israel’s military operations in Gaza and potentially influence the international community’s policy decisions. If the ICJ were to determine that Israel’s actions constitute genocide, it could trigger diplomatic repercussions and potential sanctions.
Interestingly, the case had been lodged while Pandor was in office as foreign minister from 2019 to 2024, and her role in initiating the proceedings has brought her heightened public visibility. Her subsequent remarks in 2029 suggest a continued commitment to pursuing the case and ensuring that it remains under public examination.
The international community is closely watching the ICJ’s proceedings, as they may set a precedent for how allegations of genocide are adjudicated in a global legal forum. The court’s decisions on provisional measures already demonstrate its willingness to enforce immediate protections, and a public hearing could broaden the scope of the case to a worldwide audience.
As the case progresses, South Africa’s legal team is preparing a new dossier owing the court on 25 August, outlining alleged non‑compliance by Israel with the provisional‑measures orders. The submission is intended to provide judges with updated evidence and to strengthen the case for potentially enhanced interim orders.
In the broader geopolitical context, the call for a public hearing also aligns with a push among certain African and Arab states to hold international legal bodies accountable for their decisions regarding conflicts in the Middle East. The developments could influence regional diplomatic initiatives addressing humanitarian concerns in Gaza.
Ultimately, Pandor’s appeal underscores a tension between national legal mechanisms and international diplomatic pressures. By demanding public hearings, she seeks to bring the court’s proceedings into the global spotlight, potentially catalyzing a shift in international policy toward stronger support for Palestinian civil protections in the Gaza Strip.
