Did South Africa know about October 7 in advance?

A $400 million lawsuit is being prepared in the United States (US) against South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, and if it proceeds, the fallout could be explosive. At the centre of it are accusations that the South African government knowingly collaborated with Hamas ahead of the October 7 attacks on Israel – attacks in which at least 47 American citizens were killed or taken hostage.

The mainstream media in South Africa have not uttered a word about it.

The case, built on recommendations by UK-based consultant Justin Lewis, claims to have uncovered new material evidence of coordination between South African officials, Hamas, and Iran in the months leading up to the massacre. It’s a staggering allegation: that South Africa’s diplomatic support for Hamas wasn’t just rhetorical solidarity, but active complicity.

Lewis says he warned the South African government back in April of the potential legal risks. “I was not only ignored,” he says, “but threatened with legal action by a journalist acting on behalf of the South African state.”

Lewis now claims that some of South Africa’s court filings to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) were prepared in advance and in concert with foreign actors hostile to Israel and the West. “If that’s true,” he says, “then the ICJ process was politically manipulated – and that could constitute an act of terrorism under UK and US law.”

The legal foundation for the case rests on a unanimous US Supreme Court ruling last month that upheld the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (2019), which allows Americans to sue foreign governments or individuals shown to have materially supported terrorist organisations – even overriding sovereign immunity.

Plaintiffs intend to argue that South African officials – possibly including Ramaphosa himself – either had prior knowledge of or directly facilitated Hamas operations. “Unless the president can prove he had no knowledge,” Lewis says, “he may be personally liable for damages.”

Beyond the courtroom, the economic risks are staggering. In letters dated June 30 and July 2, Lewis warned that sanctions on South African government debt could result in interest rate hikes costing taxpayers about $55 million per day. He highlights $3.5 billion in international bonds issued by South Africa in November 2023, which he claims failed to disclose “the substantial legal and reputational risks linked to collaboration with a designated terrorist entity.”

Formal notifications have been sent to the US Treasury, the House Financial Services Committee, and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). Major financial institutions – including Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Vunani Capital – have also been briefed.

In a letter to US Assistant Trade Representative Constance Hamilton, Lewis urged the White House to suspend all economic negotiations with South Africa – including those linked to the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) – until the allegations are investigated. “Continuing bilateral economic dialogue under these conditions would be reckless,” he wrote.

Adding to the storm is an alleged fatwa tied to the same networks behind the October 7 attacks – a call for the assassination of US President Donald Trump. While not central to the lawsuit, Lewis argues it signals a broader pattern of hostility towards the United States and its allies, with South Africa knowingly entangled.

So far, the Pretoria government has not publicly responded. Lewis confirms that official correspondence has been sent to President Ramaphosa’s office, SA Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana, SA National Treasury officials, and SA presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya. Copies were also sent to opposition leaders, including Cape Town Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis and Freedom Front Plus MP Dr. Corné Mulder.

“No meeting has been agreed to, despite multiple offers,” Lewis says. “If Ramaphosa and his government want to avoid economic disaster and international disgrace, they need to engage with this issue honestly and transparently.”

Whether South Africa’s support for Hamas amounts to moral posturing or something far more sinister is now a legal question. And one that may not be answered in The Hague — but in a US federal courtroom.