The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) claims former Springbok wing Ashwin Willemse’s failure to respond led to its decision to close the probe into alleged racial discrimination against him at SuperSport.
Cape Town - The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) claims former Springbok wing Ashwin Willemse’s failure to respond led to its decision to close the probe into alleged racial discrimination against him at SuperSport.
This has raised questions around how it could opt to close the probe without getting to the bottom of why Willemse did not respond.
On May 19, 2018, during the postmatch analysis of a Super Rugby match, Willemse left the set, expressing his refusal to be undermined and patronised by fellow studio analysts Nick Mallett and Naas Botha, who had played rugby in the apartheid era.
Willemse cited racism as one of the factors that led to his walkout.
SAHRC spokesperson, Wisani Baloyi told the Cape Times on Monday that the investigation was in fact closed on March 26, 2021.
“The Commission closed the investigation due to non-response from Mr Wilemse.”
Asked whether or not the SAHRC would reopen the case, he added: “The Commission would have to consider the circumstances. The Commission could reopen the investigation if Mr Willemse responds to the Commission’s correspondence.”
Human rights activist and researcher Nkosikhulule Nyembezi said the SAHRC should have investigated why the complainant was not responding.
“Has he been threatened? “Is he traumatised?”
What further course of action are they suggesting? Just because the investigation and findings are usually not the final point, the action of what they recommend is usually in the purview of other role players.
If there hasn't been a conclusion, the complainant would have to start anew, using another avenue. It would be strange for the Commission to say they just closed a case because the person was not responsive.
They have the power to seek responses from people against whom there are complaints. The issue is that we don't know why the complainant is unresponsive.
They need to make us understand and learn the circumstances which the complainant has to navigate to get justice. Not all complaints are brought to the Commission but its decision helps to shape how society acts.
“What happened in the first initial years to get to this point? The profile of complaint has details that can give us an insight, from a social group, where the person is employed etc, in terms of how difficult it is for you to navigate the process of laying a complaint.
If it is one of those cases that just evaded them, they are supposed to explain it. How did they end up at this point?”
Willemse has for years been quiet on the matter and did also not respond to requests for comment by deadline on Monday.
In response to the incident, SuperSport appointed advocate Vincent Maleka to conduct an independent review, examining the circumstances leading to the walkout and the allegations made by Willemse.
His report titled Report on the review of the altercation that took place at Studio 1 of SuperSport concluded that neither Botha nor Mallett had displayed "naked racism" towards Willemse.
Furthermore, Maleka found no evidence of subtle racism being used.
As part of his recommendations, Maleka suggested that SuperSport refer Willemse's racism allegations to the SAHRC for a resolution.
Multichoice, owners of SuperSport, did not respond to requests for comment by deadline on Monday.
Cape Times