The Constitutional Court has declined retired Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke’s bid to join as a friend of the court in an ongoing legal dispute over the proposed New York auction of former President Nelson Mandela’s personal artifacts. The case, centering on items including a historic voting ID and prison tennis racket, returns to court on September 8.
Court Rejects Former Deputy Chief Justice’s Bid
The Constitutional Court delivered a refusal to retired Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke, turning down his application to enter a legal battle as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court. Moseneke, who serves as the last surviving executor of the Nelson Mandela estate following the deaths of Judge Temba Sangoni and advocate George Bizos SC, argued that his connection to Mandela and his role as executor gave him an interest in the matter. According to reporting from the outlet, the apex court concluded that the applicant had failed to make out a case for admission.
The legal clash centers on plans by Mandela’s eldest daughter, Dr. Makaziwe Mandela, to put several of her father’s possessions up for sale at Guernsey’s Auction House in New York. The intended auction has drawn opposition from institutional guardians of the nation’s past. The South African Heritage Resources Agency, the Robben Island Museum, and the Arts and Culture Department have joined forces to block the export and sale of the collection abroad.
“The Constitutional Court has considered the application of admission as amicus curiae. It has concluded that the application should be dismissed as the applicant has failed to make out a case for admission as an amicus curiae.”
Constitutional Court, via ENCA
Historic Belongings and Heritage Regulations
The disputed inventory includes Nelson Mandela’s green barcoded ID card used to cast a ballot in 1994, his hearing aid, eleven Madiba shirts, a suit, three briefcases, four walking sticks, one pair of shoes, handwritten letters, two pairs of sunglasses, a tea set, and the tennis racket he used during his incarceration on Robben Island. Also included are gifts received from governments worldwide.
In his founding affidavit, Moseneke pointed to national legislation governing cultural preservation. He emphasized that the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 regulates the movement of items connected to heritage. As court documents highlighted, regulations prohibit sending a heritage object out of the country without a permit issued by SAHRA.
The 2019 Heritage Declaration includes ‘objects related to significant political processes, events, figures and leaders in South Africa’ …
Dikgang Moseneke, via ENCA
Moseneke also raised questions regarding estate administration, stating that Mandela’s will bequeathed the Houghton property to the Nelson Mandela Trust, while movable assets and personal effects were bequeathed to his widow, Graca Machel. He alleged that certain belongings were removed without the knowledge of the Trust, the executors, or Machel.
A Judicial Career Tied to the Struggle
The rejection marks a moment for a legal figure whose own life is intertwined with the history of South Africa’s liberation. Born in Pretoria on December 20, 1947, Moseneke joined the Pan-Africanist Congress at age 14 and was arrested the following year, leading to ten years of imprisonment on Robben Island where he met and befriended Nelson Mandela, according to biographical records from Nelson Mandela University.
During his years in public service, Moseneke served on the technical committee that drafted the 1993 interim constitution and acted as deputy chairperson of the Independent Electoral Commission for the 1994 elections. Appointed to the Constitutional Court in 2002 and named Deputy Chief Justice in June 2005, he retired in May 2016.
Reflecting on the broader gravity of the current dispute, Moseneke warned in his court papers that the litigation carries consequences beyond a single dispute. He argued that the outcome directly affects how the nation preserves its cultural, social and political memory and history, stressing that the findings will influence the national estate bequeathed to future generations of South Africans and people of the world.
Next Legal Steps and Upcoming Dates
With the Constitutional Court turning away Moseneke’s intervention, the primary legal battle between the state heritage agencies and the estate representatives moves forward. The question of whether the collection can legally leave South Africa for the New York auction house remains unresolved as the litigation continues to unfold.
The legal proceedings will resume when the matter returns to court on September 8, where arguments regarding the export prohibition and the disposition of the artifacts are expected to proceed.
