A Clarification on the South Africa-Hamas Lawsuit

After publishing my recent blog about the alleged collaboration between the South African government and Hamas prior to October 7, I’ve received a wave of responses – and I want to address them openly.

My piece focused on the claims made by UK-based consultant Justin Lewis, who has submitted formal recommendations to US lawmakers and financial bodies warning of potential legal, financial, and diplomatic consequences for South Africa’s support of Hamas.

However, I need to clarify one important point: while Lewis has said he submitted these recommendations, he is not personally involved in any litigation process and cannot confirm that a lawsuit is being filed. He advises third parties who may be considering such action.

This does not negate the seriousness of the questions raised – nor the significance of South Africa’s diplomatic posture toward Hamas and Iran, which continues to generate global concern. But it does shift the emphasis: this is not yet a legal case; it is a lobbying and advocacy effort based on unverified allegations.

Almost all the responses to my previous blog post were positive. But I’ve also heard from concerned colleagues and friends in the media, urging me to look again at the man behind these claims. And they’re right.

As a journalist, I must distinguish between reporting on an allegation and becoming a platform for it. In hindsight, I may have blurred that line – and that’s something I take seriously.

Let me clarify a few points:

Justin Lewis has said that he submitted recommendations to US lawmakers and financial institutions, including the US Congress and Treasury Department. He also says he’s been advising on the implications of Executive Order 14204, reportedly signed by President Trump, and that a lawsuit is in preparation. But as of now, I’ve seen no verified legal filings, no court dockets, and no official response from the US or South African governments to substantiate these claims.

DIRCO (South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation) has publicly denied the allegations, calling them “unverified and baseless.” While they have not responded directly to Lewis, this statement has been widely understood as addressing his claims.

Lewis has also made sweeping accusations of corruption involving South African judges and global financial institutions. At the time of writing, no public investigations or legal actions have been confirmed in connection with these claims.

Since publishing my blog, I’ve received links to other outlets that have also quoted Lewis or reported on the story. While this offers some reassurance that I was not alone in covering it, it also reinforces how much of this narrative is still uncorroborated.

The broader question – what did South Africa know about Hamas’s intentions before October 7, and what role has it played diplomatically since? – remains valid and urgent. But it must be pursued through verified facts, credible sources, and balanced reporting.

I intend to continue reporting on this story. In the coming days, I’ll be speaking to a range of analysts and legal experts to assess both the claims and the implications. If evidence surfaces – of collaboration, foreknowledge, or financial consequences – I will report on it. But I will do so transparently and carefully.

This blog is part of that commitment.

Until then, I encourage readers to treat these claims with critical thought.

As a journalist, I’m not here to prosecute. But I am here to ask questions – and push for answers.

I stand by my decision to report on the claims.

My inbox is open.