Critics lambast ‘reckless, baseless’ further funding for ICJ

Against the backdrop of South Africa’s Budget crisis and its rapidly declining relationship with the United States (US), South Africa’s National Treasury designated a further R37.2 million to fund the government’s case against Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

This pushes the government’s expenditure on the case to more than R130 million. The R37.2 million was allocated from the department of the presidency, with Treasury saying that “the presidency is representing South Africa in the case before the ICJ, against Israel”.

The South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) criticised the expenditure, highlighting the fact that South Africa faces urgent domestic challenges that demand attention and resources.

“The judiciary itself, closely tied to this international effort, is teetering on the brink of paralysis due to chronic underfunding,” says SAJBD analyst Adam Charnas. “Just last month, the Department of Basic Education reported a staggering R129 billion shortfall to address infrastructure backlogs in schools nationwide. Other critical areas, such as social services, housing, and broader infrastructure also cry out for investment, where resources could yield immediate, transformative benefits for South Africans.

“The ICJ case represents an ill-conceived, costly, and polarising move by the South African government,” Charnas says. “At a time when the nation desperately needs unity and social cohesion, this action only fuels division, hostility, and tension. Rather than chasing an expensive legal endeavour with no clear impact, South Africa would do well to prioritise its own people and the myriad challenges at home.”

South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) spokesperson, Rolene Marks, says the SAZF condemns the government’s “reckless diversion of R37.2 million to its baseless ICJ case against Israel. Amidst record unemployment, collapsing healthcare, daily blackouts, and 2.3 million households without housing, this squandering of scarce funds on political grandstanding is indefensible.

“Taxpayer money should prioritise job creation, fixing schools, hospitals, and loadshedding – not hypocritical foreign campaigns,” Marks says. “The ICJ’s January 2024 ruling rejecting calls to curb Israel’s lawful self-defence proves this legal farce’s futility. Rather, recover looted billions, uplift citizens, and fulfil constitutional duties. Don’t fuel global theatrics while South Africa burns.”

Ray Hartley, research director of local think tank The Brenthurst Foundation, says, “The South African government is doubling down on a disastrous policy route that has already severely damaged its relationship with the US, a key trading partner. The absence of any such allocation for countering the real genocide taking place in African countries such as Sudan suggests that this is a political and not a moral choice.”

In November 2024, Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Ronald Lamola insisted that South African taxpayers were paying for the ICJ case, and that it wasn’t being financially backed by any foreign funder. But on 17 March 2025, Ann Bernstein, the executive director of think tank the Centre for Development and Enterprise, warned that “South Africa has run out of money”, and if it continues its current policies, it will drive the country into a bigger crisis.

The Treasury’s “2025 Budget: Estimates of National Expenditure” document stated that the ICJ case supported “the country’s commitment to upholding human rights and freedom, as well as other international obligations. For this purpose, an additional R37.2 million over the medium term is allocated to appoint legal representatives and cover the costs for interpreters, translators, travel, and subsistence.”

But Bernstein warns, “We are living beyond our means. We need to be like Argentinian President Javier Milei, who campaigned under the slogan, ‘We have no more money.’”

The R37.2 million allocation for the case is on top of appropriations made in the medium-term budget in 2024, which gave R17 million to the presidency to file its memorial document, and a further R78 million to the Department of Justice for costs associated with the proceedings. In addition, top South African advocates and British barristers were hired in 2024 to argue for South Africa at the ICJ.

In December 2024, a contentious R95 million of taxpayers’ money, retrospectively allocated, was used to finance what critics dubbed an “anti-Israel junket” to Geneva, for South Africa to pursue its ICJ case. The expenses included multiple airfares, luxury hotels, and fancy dining.

The funds were part of an Appropriations Bill, a legislative tool that allows government to give retrospective authorisation for funds already spent.

While the Democratic Alliance (DA) and Patriotic Alliance, part of the Government of National Unity, came under fire for approving the Bill, the DA emphasised at the time that it maintained its opposition to the ICJ case, stressing, “at no point did we approve any additional funding for this case”.

DA Chief Whip George Michalakis said at the time, “If the trade-off has to be at home or abroad, I do think charity begins at home, and we would most certainly advocate for funds to be spent towards South Africa and growing our own economy than to fight a battle overseas.”

Now, DA MP and Shadow Minister for International Relations and Cooperation, Emma Louise Powell, told the SA Jewish Report, “The DA is in the process of analysing the Budget to understand the full picture, and we will comment at the appropriate time.”

Speaking to the SA Jewish Report in his personal capacity, DA MP Michael Bagraim says, “They can find money for this, but they can’t find money for starving children at public schools. They also can’t seem to find money for hiring nurses, doctors, policemen, you name it, they just don’t have money for that, but they have money to fund foreign court cases which make no difference to this country whatsoever, that are absolutely superfluous to South Africa.

“If you’re talking court cases, we haven’t been able to prosecute anyone in South Africa who has been identified by the Zondo Commission, due to various problems, one of them being finances,” says Bagraim. “They don’t have enough money for our criminal courts, but they’ve got money for a court outside of the country. It’s the most unbelievable exercise – it’s purely vindictiveness and antisemitism.”

Charnas lamented South Africa’s misguided choices, saying “The ICJ case has thus far failed to save a single life in Gaza or Israel. In contrast, countries like Egypt, the US, and Qatar, through proactive engagement with Israel, successfully negotiated a ceasefire that halted hostilities, facilitated the delivery of aid, secured the return of hostages, and ultimately preserved lives.

“Imagine the potential for a more constructive outcome had South Africa adopted the neutral, mediating role it has embraced in other global disputes, acting as an impartial and dedicated intermediary?” asks Charnas. “How much greater could its influence have been on the Middle East conflict?”