Survivors and families of victims of the Sharpeville Massacre launch legal claim against South African government

They are demanding that the South African government finally implements the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and provides reparations to the victims and their families. 

The legal claim, launched at an event in Sharpeville on Thursday 3 September 2026, will seek to overturn legislation passed by the former apartheid regime a year after the massacre (1961) which prohibited legal action by survivors and dependents of those killed and which has never been repealed. 

The Sharpeville Massacre was one of the most notorious atrocities of the apartheid era in South Africa. On 21 March 1960 at least 91 people were killed and 238 wounded when police opened fire on a crowd of 5,000 peaceful protestors who had gathered to protest against discriminatory apartheid laws. 

Within a minute, they had fired 1,362 rounds into the crowd of men, women and children.   At least 91 people were killed and more than 238 people wounded.  Most of the victims were shot in the back as they turned to flee. 

It was a watershed moment as the international community finally woke up to the horrors of apartheid. It set in train a series of events inside and outside South Africa which led to South Africa’s isolation on the international stage and the development of a global anti-apartheid movement. Such is the importance of Sharpeville in South African history that Nelson Mandela chose Sharpeville as the location for signing the new constitution in 1996. 

The legal claim is being brought in South Africa as a class action by law firm Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) supported by UK human rights law firm Leigh Day acting as consultants to the South African legal team. 

The three lead claimants, who will represent two classes of people - surviving victims who were shot during the massacre and surviving dependents of people who were shot and killed - are: 

• Mr Abram Mofokeng (87 years old) was 20 years old at the time of the massacre and was shot in the foot and back while fleeing gunfire. Doctors were not able to remove the bullet, which is still in his back. After being treated for his bullet wound, Mr Mofokeng was imprisoned for his participation in the protest and subjected to further brutal treatment. His legal claim for compensation was extinguished by the Indemnity Act, and his application for an ex-gratia payment was rejected on the grounds that he was a protester.  
• Ms Paulina Mathinye (71 years old) who was almost 5 years old when her father Mr Samson Mathinye was killed in the massacre. Her family struggled after her father’s death – as well as the emotional impact, the financial impact of losing the family’s breadwinner was devastating, and she and her siblings lived in poverty and often went without food and other basic necessities.
• Mr Ishmael Poho (72 years old) who was six years old when his father Gilbert Poho Dimo was killed at the Massacre. Mr Poho was very close to his father and has spoken about how his “world came crashing down” after he was killed. His mother and sisters were made to search body bags at Sharpeville police station to find his father’s corpse, and the family were not allowed to bury him themselves. Like Ms Mathinye’s family, Mr Poho’s family severely struggled financially after his father’s death. Both Ms Mathinye and Mr Poho are still resident in the same family homes they lived in when their fathers were killed.  

As a result of losing their fathers, both Paulina Mathinye and Ishmael Poho had childhoods marred by extreme poverty and hardship which impacted their education and their subsequent employment and life chances. 

Before the launch of the legal claim in Sharpeville, family members of victims held a silent walk of witness following the same route taken by the marchers who started the protest before paying tribute to the victims at the Sharpeville Memorial Garden.  

At the press conference at the Nkadimeng Leutsoa Library in Sharpeville, survivors of the massacre, relatives of victims and their lawyers set out how the claim will work and what it will seek to achieve. 

Survivor Abram Mofokeng said: 

“I grieve for my community; neighbours killed, families broken, and generations left without closure. Many people close to me – friends, cousins, schoolmates were shot. I saw them on the ground. Some of them survived but were crippled.   

It is not possible to forget what happened in 1960, it traumatised us mentally and physically. I cannot go a day without thinking about how we have been affected.” 

Paulina Mathinye, whose father was killed in the massacre said:

“I was never able to get justice for my father’s death, and my soul is not happy. There was no opportunity for me to do so. I didn’t have the information about the TRC, so I didn’t go… 

 The police killed my father. There is nothing that could bring him back, but I want justice to be done”. 

Charne Tracey from Lawyers for Human Rights said: 

“The plaintiffs want to enter into dialogue with the South African Government and invite them to meet with the wider cohort of survivors and their families to discuss appropriate reparations, informed by the recommendations of the TRC.  But they are under no illusions that they must carry a legal stick if their voices are going to be listened to.” 

Dan Leader, international department barrister and partner at Leigh Day said: 

“This is a time of reckoning for modern South Africa. For any successful political transformation, it is vital that the past is confronted, and that justice is done and seen to be done. That is unfinished business for South Africa, and through this case the people of Sharpeville intend to fight on until it has been completed.” 

The families of most of the 91 people killed and 238 people injured at the massacre still live in Sharpeville, many of them in the same family home – small rudimentary houses designed by apartheid-era town planners to minimise costs and reinforce segregation. 

The survivors of the massacre lived for decades afterwards, many of them with disabilities as a result of their injuries, and a small number of elderly survivors are still alive in Sharpeville today. 

The new Government in 1994 was charged with the burden of contending with the trauma of apartheid.  It started with the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) under the Chairmanship of Archbishop Desmond Tutu. 

The TRC was a first step in a national process of national reconciliation, accountability and reparations to victims. But it is not widely known that its recommendations have still not been effectively implemented almost 30 years after they were made. The lack of meaningful accountability or reparations for apartheid era crimes is now a major issue in South Africa. The Khampepe Commission of Enquiry is currently investigating allegations of interference with or obstruction of the investigation and prosecution of TRC cases and is due to report in December 2026.  

The Sharpeville case is focused on reparations which have fallen far short of what was recommended by the TRC both in terms of the amount awarded and the highly restricted number of people authorised to receive support. In desperation, increasingly elderly victims of apartheid have taken to protesting and sleeping outside the Constitutional Court to demand reparations.    

To date, over 70 survivors and close family members of people killed at the Massacre have come forward and expressed support for, or an interest in participating in, the proposed litigation. It is anticipated that more will come forward after the case is launched.  

The legal basis for the claims - The Indemnity Act 61 of 1961 - was enacted in the aftermath of the Sharpeville Massacre and prevented civil and criminal proceedings from being brought against specified state officials and others in respect of conduct falling within its terms. It was brought in to protect the apartheid government from any legal accountability and remains in force in South Africa to the present day.  

Since its enactment, the law has presented a total barrier to the survivors and next of kin of those killed from pursuing any claims for damages arising from the massacre. 

The plaintiffs will argue that the law should be struck from the statute book on the basis that it is not compatible with their fundamental right of access to court under the South African Constitution. 

If the South African government argues that the claims are out of time , the plaintiffs will argue that the Indemnity Act had the effect of interrupting the three-year prescription period, which should be considered to run from the moment the Act is struck down.