THE ANNUAL KADER ASMAL LECTURE

29 October 2025 – Durban, KwaZulu-Natal

We, the people of South Africa,
Recognise the injustices of our past;
Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land;
Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and
Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.
We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to
Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights;
Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law;
Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and
Build a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations.
May God protect our people.
Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika. Morena boloka setjhaba sa heso.
God seën Suid-Afrika. God bless South Africa.
Mudzimu fhatutshedza Afurika. Hosi katekisa Afrika.

Introduction

With these opening words, the adoption of the Constitution in 1996 marked the end of the long nightmare of apartheid and colonialism.

It marked the end of White Supremacy and of Black humiliation.

But who would have imagined that an entire generation after the momentous adoption of the democratic constitution, there would be a small group of men, both Black and White, who would unashamedly campaign against equal rights and fundamental freedoms.

This is the subject of my talk today in honour of that great South African law professor and freedom fighter, Kader Asmal.

As I speak purely in my personal capacity, I can say it as it is and call it by its name.

On the one hand there are those who rubbish the Constitution by making the claim that the Constitution is Eurocentric, that it was drafted by Whites, or that it was secretly drafted by imperialists in Washington and imposed on us.

On the other hand there are those who rubbish the Constitution by claiming that our Constitution promotes white genocide, is a blueprint for ‘socialism’, and that the Bill of Rights is ‘woke’.

It is, oh so tempting, to simply dismiss these views by saying: take it from whence it comes. Of course, from whence it comes is not unimportant, but let me first deal with the actual substance.

Our Constitution is no accident of history. It is the product of a glorious freedom struggle against apartheid, that crime against humanity, and, it is product of a vision for an enlightened future.

It was drafted by 490 democratically elected members of the Constitutional Assembly over a two-year period from 1994 to 1996.

The very composition of the Assembly was a representation of South African society in all its diversity.

It was an intergenerational group composed of members in their twenties to some in their eighties.

There were trade union official and shop stewards from the mines and across industries.

There were business owners.

There were school teachers, domestic workers, lawyers and medical doctors.

There were former SADF Generals and former uMkhonto We Sizwe combatants.

There were Traditional Leaders, Christian priests, Muslim imams and other religious leaders.

There were recently returned exiles and activists of the United Democratic Front.

There were writers, poets and musicians.

They came from the ANC, the PAC, the Communist Party, the National Party, the Democratic Party, Inkatha Freedom Party, the Freedom Front and range of other small parties.

And, they came from every corner of urban and rural South Africa.

When you looked at this body of people, you knew that you were looking at South Africa.

On 27 April 1994, twenty million voters granted the 490 members of the Constitutional Assembly, the sovereign mandate to draft and adopt a Constitution for the free South Africa.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Constitutional Assembly had the democratic mandate to draft and adopt a new constitution, it decided to go beyond the call of duty by doing everything humanly possible to actively involve the people as a whole in the drafting process.

The public consultation process that followed stands out as a monument in itself. Its extent, scale and reach has no equal in the pre or post-apartheid South Africa.

It is also safe to say that no other Constitution anywhere else in the world is a product of such extensive public consultation and active participation of the citizenry.

The first step was to hold all meetings of the CA and its myriad of committees in full public view. None of the debates and discussions were held behind closed doors.
All the proceedings were extensively reported in the media.

The mantra was: the Constitution should not be drafted behind the backs or above the heads of the people.

Members of the CA travelled the length and breadth of the country holding public consultation meetings.
The proceedings of each such consultation are on record.

Widely publicised calls, in all languages, were made requesting the public to submit their views to the Assembly.

A staggering 1 753 424 written and voice submissions were received.

Between the years 1994 to 1996, the general public was intimately engaged in the Constitution making process.

When the new Constitution was finally voted upon, it was supported by an overwhelming majority in the CA.
(As a matter of interest, only 2 (out of 490) members voted against. This is less than 0.5%).

This Constitution was genuinely the making of the South African nation.

The very first provision of the adopted Constitution says:

The Republic of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state founded on the following values:

a. Human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms.
b. Non-racialism and non-sexism.
c. Supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law.
d. Universal adult suffrage, a national common voters roll, regular elections and a multi-party system of democratic government, to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness.

On the occasion of the adoption of the Constitution, the leader of the majority party in the CA, then Deputy President Thabo Mbeki said:

The constitution whose adoption we celebrate constitutes an unequivocal statement that we refuse to accept that our Africanness shall be defined by our race, colour, gender or historical origins. It is a firm assertion made by ourselves that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white.

It gives concrete expression to the sentiment we share as Africans, and will defend to the death, that the people shall govern.

It recognises the fact that the dignity of the individual is both an objective which society must pursue, and is a goal which cannot be separated from the material well-being of that individual.

It seeks to create the situation in which all our people shall be free from fear, including the fear of the oppression of one national group by another, the fear of the disempowerment of one social echelon by another, the fear of the use of state power to deny anybody their fundamental human rights and the fear of tyranny.

It aims to open the doors so that those who were disadvantaged can assume their place in society as equals with their fellow human beings without regard to colour, race, gender, age or geographic dispersal.

It provides the opportunity to enable each one and all to state their views, promote them, strive for their implementation in the process of governance without fear that a contrary view will be met with repression.

It creates a law-governed society which shall be inimical to arbitrary rule.

It enables the resolution of conflicts by peaceful means rather than resort to force.

It rejoices in the diversity of our people and creates the space for all of us voluntarily to define ourselves as one people.

As an African, this is an achievement of which I am proud, proud without reservation and proud without any feeling of conceit.

Our sense of elevation at this moment also derives from the fact that this magnificent product is the unique creation of African hands and African minds.

How is it that a small number of people are doing everything to question the legitimacy of the constitution? Anyone who knows the history of our Constitution will find this very perplexing. Is it really out of genuine ignorance of how and who made our constitution?

They answer this question themselves when they rubbish the very fundamentals of the Constitution. Let’s say it like it is: these anti-democrats are backward reactionaries who are opposed to the fundamental democratic values contained in the Constitution. They are opposed to political and social progress. They yearn for a nostalgic past in which the common man and women is denied freedom.

Without looking too hard, one can see many common characteristics of these anti-democrats.

Yes, let’s look at it for what it is.

Many of those rubbishing the Constitution are the very ones who have been found guilty of wrongdoing, stand accused of wrongdoing or work as paid legal advisors to wrongdoers. This is hardly a co-incidence!

They also resort to reviving the demon of tribalism.

They openly yearn for a return to patriarchy.

And then there are those who just happen to be the very ones who openly praise apartheid, promote religious intolerance and naked white supremacy. 2025 will go down in history as the year in which white supremacist in South Africa, the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and elsewhere abandoned all sense of shame and walked out of the shadows to spit bile on anyone who is not white.

Could it be that after centuries of a world ruled by white men through slavery, colonialism and apartheid, the short 5 or 6 decades since the civil rights movement in the US, the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the feminist movement and the fall of apartheid, what we are seeing is a rebellion against the sharing of wealth and power with others – with women and with people of colour.

Their brazenness takes ones breath away. In thinly veiled racism, they talk about the ‘Western way of life’ being under threat – of course, meaning that white monopoly of privilege and power is under threat.

We are fortunate that in South Africa this is not a generalised sentiment among whites. The few who promote white supremacism are regarded as an embarrassment.

By the way, they enjoy free speech here. In America, which they consider to be heaven on earth, it is now a crime to speak out against fascism.

Let us be unambiguous: diversity, inclusiveness, openness and tolerance are fundamental to what the free South Africa is about, not just a nice to have. It is deeply offensive for anybody to rubbish these values especially if it is done by supremacists.

South African’s both black and white fought long and hard for the achievement of a sovereign republic.

Is it a wonder that the same supremacist are calling on the US to impose imperial power over South Africa?

They are obviously impressed that in the US, freedom loving journalists, academics, judges and civil servants are being persecuted.

They are calling for the recolonisation of South Africa.

The idea of a sovereign republic only makes sense to them if it is controlled by a white-minority regime.

Both these White and Black anti-democrats make extensive use of social media and the glib one-liners that this medium lends itself to. Both these groups rely heavily on podcasts – a medium through which fact-checking does not apply and a medium in which the one-sided point of view is revered.

It is interesting that in style, both resort to incendiary language, hyperbole and profanities.

They both resort to ethnic mobilisation, a common refuge for scoundrels.

Ethics, compassion and fundamental human rights are alien to their discourse.

Let’s look at some of their arguments against the Constitution:

The anti-democrats say that the constitution is ‘woke’

By this they mean that the Constitution prohibits – without equivocation – the promotion of racism. That it promotes tolerance and compassion. That it prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race or gender or religion or sexual orientation. That it says a women is first and foremost a full human being. They also don’t like religious freedom. The constitutional right to freely practice ones religion is far too ‘woke’ for them.

The Anti-Democrats say that the Constitution discriminates against white males and/or it promotes white genocide.

This is nothing more than a desperate yearning for the days when every privilege was reserved by white men for white men. Their real gripe is against the opening of the doors of learning, of the corridors of power, the professions and the economy to women and blacks. The Constitution requires of the state to correct the imbalances of the past. That those who were trampled upon for centuries are given the opportunity to study to work and live a life of dignity. Those anti-democrats are really asking for white privilege and black disadvantage to be frozen in time. If this Constitution was anti-white, it would not have been the case that more than a generation after freedom the standard of living of white males is miles ahead of any other group in society.

As mentioned by Rob Rose and Monica Mark in the Financial Times dated 18 October 2025: “Housesholds headed by white South Africans earn, on average, more than four times the income of Black households, according to Statistics South Africa. An unemployment rate of 37 per cent for Black households falls to 8 per cent for their white peers.” The actual data speaks for itself.

The anti-democrats say that the Constitution was drafted in Washington and imposed on us

We are fortunate that the South African constitution was drafted in the modern electronic era. As a result, every step of its drafting is available in video and audio footage for anyone who cares to see. The utterly false claim is nothing but a deliberate attempt by those who act unlawfully and those who are apologists for wrongdoers to legitimise their contemptuous behaviour.

The anti- democrats say that Constitution is Eurocentric and that it is un-African

An extension of this argument would be that the struggle for one person one vote is unAfrican. That the struggle for a living wage is unAfrican. That the long struggle of South African women for equal rights is unAfrican.

One is reminded of the claim by the Apartheid oppressors that the freedom struggle for the overthrow of apartheid and equal rights was the work of soviet inspired communist – that these were really unAfrican ideals.

Now we are told that the equal rights and freedoms that form the backbone of the Constitution are being imposed on us by ‘others’.

The anti-democrats say that Constitution grants too much power to unelected judiciary

Our Constitution grants parliament the right to make the laws that governs us but not the right to take away our freedoms.

Yes, an elected parliament is free to rule but not free to oppress us.

Parliament should not be able to scrap regular elections, free speech, religious freedom, equal rights for workers, etc.

In any case, it is not uncommon for scoundrels and anti-democrats all over the world to rubbish the judges and courts that stops them from wrongdoing.

By the way, the judges do not appoint themselves. They are appointed by the JSC, which is controlled by parliament.

The anti-democrats say that the Constitution does not allow for the redistribution of land

Show me the evidence please. The Constitution not only allows for land redistribution, it requires government to do it. There is no evidence that the slow pace of land redistribution is a result of the property clause in the Bill of Rights.

In any event, the fundamental essence of the constitution does not stand or fall by any particular formulation of the property clause. The Constitution itself allows for an amendment to the property clause or any other clause provided this is supported by an overwhelming majority of South Africans. There is no demonstrable evidence that the overwhelming majority are opposed to the property clause.

And, of course, as strange is the false claim by white anti-democrats that the Constitution allows for farms to be unjustly appropriated.

Sunset Clauses

Then there is this constant false claim that there are serious ‘compromises’ in the C called unset clauses and that this is what is holding us back. Please show me the sunset clauses. There are none!

There were sunset clauses in terms of which the Government of National Unity operated from 1994 to 1996. The sun on these clauses have long set. They no longer exist!

Conclusion

The Constitution serves as the mirror we use to judge ourselves.

It is the standard we expect those in political and economic power to respect.

It is the ultimate weapon of the poor, the weak and the disadvantaged.

It is the window through which the nation looks at the future we want.

Valli Moosa was one of the architects of the Constitution. He served as Minister of Constitutional Development in President Nelson Mandela’s cabinet.

---

WATCH THE LECTURE BELOW: