The invitation to Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, to deliver this year’s Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture drew electric response. Interest was so great that the venue was moved to the Sandton Convention Centre to accommodate a larger audience.

But the moment of celebration – a prominent South African civil society organisation honouring a UN official who has spoken with moral clarity and courage about the devastation in Gaza – was marred by an act that was both improper and deeply revealing. As Albanese left the lectern, a sheriff of the South African High Court attempted to serve her with court papers in a defamation suit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

The lawsuit, brought by the Christian Friends of Israeli Communities and Christians for Israel US, and supported by the National Jewish Advocacy Center, alleges that Albanese defamed them and caused “economic disadvantage” in her official UN report From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide. The passages at issue are footnoted, restrained, and plainly within her mandate: she identifies “faith-based charities” that fund settler expansion and militarised projects in the occupied territories.

By contrast, the plaintiffs’ founding papers are littered with unreferenced assertions and cite partisan sources such as Israel’s Ministry of Digital Affairs and UN Watch to brand Albanese a “clear antisemite.” This is not the evidentiary basis of a serious legal claim: it is the weaponisation of process to intimidate and silence a UN official for executing her mandate.

An Irregular and Unlawful Service

South Africa’s Minister of Justice, Mmamoloko Kubayi, has since apologised for what she rightly called the “irregular service of process.” She explained that neither she nor the Director-General had authorised it, as required under section 40(2) of the Superior Courts Act, which mandates that any foreign civil process must be transmitted through the Department of Justice with ministerial approval. In this case, that did not occur.

Even if it had, such service would still likely have been improper. Under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (CPIUN)—which South Africa has domesticated through the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act (DIPA)—UN officials are immune from legal process for acts performed in their official capacity (Article V, section 18(a)). “Experts on mission,” including Special Rapporteurs, enjoy immunity “from legal process of every kind in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in the course of the performance of their mission” (Article VI, section 22(b)).

Albanese’s statements – contained in a formal UN report, on a subject central to her mandate – fall squarely within this protection.

A US Challenge to the International Order

The plaintiffs argue that Albanese’s conduct falls “outside the scope” of her mission, that her mandate was improperly extended, and that the unilateral sanctions imposed on her by the US and its Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, strip her of immunity under US law. This is extraordinary reasoning. It asserts that Washington can unilaterally decide which UN mandates are legitimate and which officials may be targeted.

That may be the position of the United States and its current administration. But it is not the law in South Africa. And that distinction matters.

South Africa’s record in engaging with international criminal justice is, to put it most generously, uneven. The escape of Omar al-Bashir from ICC and domestic South African arrest warrant and Pretoria’s vacillating commitment to the Rome Statute remain enduring stains. Yet in bringing a case before the International Court of Justice accusing Israel of violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and in supporting efforts to secure accountability before the International Criminal Court, South Africa has taken a principled stand in defence of global justice.

The Stakes for South Africa

South Africa’s relationship with the United States is an essential one, and neither the government nor any South African can wish away the realities of trade and diplomacy. Yet we must also recognise that the case against Albanese – and the attempt to serve her here – is not just an administrative inconvenience or error. It is a test of whether the principles that underpin international law can survive intimidation by the powerful.

Albanese is not beyond criticism or challenge. But she cannot be stripped of her UN protections on US whim – otherwise international law is stripped of any meaning. In defending the integrity of her mandate and the independence of the United Nations, South Africa defends something larger: the fragile but vital promise that there might one day be one standard of justice for all.

Nicole Fritz is the executive director of the Campaign for Free Expression. This article first appeared in News24, 28 October 2025.