Section 27 Is Correct: An Injury to One is an Injury to All
By Hassen Lorgat
This recent opinion piece by KAMOHELO CHAUKE | Section27’s troubling choice in representing Tlaleng Mofokeng is a case of being proactive by muddying the waters. https://www.businessday.co.za/opinion/2026-09-08-kamohelo-chauke-section27s-troubling-choice-in-representing-tlaleng-mofokeng/
The question he asks — why are donor funds being used to defend EFF’s mayoral candidate for Johannesburg — reveals ignorance, because when the case took place over a year ago, Dr Tlaleng was only a Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health.
That it comes on September 08, 2026, is a matter of timing, and that he is operating as an intellectual sleeper of op-ed writer for hire. He is, after all, in the service of Zionism and he has been called into action to sully the victory of Dr Tlaleng by questioning the role of a public interest law firm in defending the then Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health.
He is wrong to state that Section 27 was sponsoring a mayoral candidate, whereas what they did was support her when she was still a Special Rapporteur.
It was in January 2025, when the Israeli Crime Minister Netanyahu announced a brief delay in the Gaza ceasefire — the subject of the SAZF complaint to the HPCSA — when she wrote that post. On 19 January, she had responded to an Al Jazeera report on the delay with: “F*ck him” (since deleted). The SAZF complaint also cited a reply she made to UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer, who had pressured the UN to act against her: “You white man. Evil scum. Voetsek.”
Section 27 did not support a mayoral candidate; they supported a health professional and health rights advocate. On their website, Section 27 makes bold its principles and how it works:
SECTION27 uses law and activism with partners to create systemic change in South Africa’s health and education systems. We use strategic court cases and community action to help people access healthcare and education. We run campaigns to teach the public about the Constitution and take part in human rights discussions. We also do high-quality research to support our work with evidence.
In October 2025, the public interest law firm made a submission https://section27.org.za/2025/10/submissions-to-the-un-special-rapporteur-on-the-right-to-health-access-to-health-care-services-for-migrants-in-south-africa/ to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health regarding the ongoing denial of healthcare services to migrants in South Africa. This time, they highlighted the “increasing intimidation and exclusion of migrants from public healthcare facilities” as well as the role of Operation Dudula, an anti-African migrant organisation, and the failure of the government to ensure equitable access to healthcare.
It was an obvious place to go, as this case touches on both domestic and international human rights law violations, and it sought through the office of Dr Tlaleng to ask the South African government to provide healthcare without discrimination to migrant communities in South Africa.
This preceded the case of Dr T, who was attacked for telling the fugitive from international law B Netanyahu to FU.
The second case that Chauke refreshes in BD was equally strategic — it wanted to deflect. It came from the same source, what he calls a Geneva-based UN WATCH. This phraseology is meant to present a sense of authenticity, but UN Watch is a bogus NGO that Spinwatch confirms is a front for the Israeli government, and its director Hillel Neuer wrote at the end of July 2026 to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres to complain.
The NGO was strategic and wanted to blunt the exit report of Dr Tlaleng, and they picked on the fact of the groundbreaking report that formed her last report at the UN. Dr T officially ended her UN mandate on July 31 — a moment South Africans should be proud of. Yet two or so days before, Israeli supporters tried to bring about a stink to smear her work.
This July complaint against Dr Mofokeng arises from her acceptance of the EFF’s mayoral candidacy for Johannesburg in the November 2026 elections. The complainants claim that by doing so, she violated her duties as UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health. They incorrectly state that her UN mandate runs until August 2026, and they also question her impartiality, but I know that they were running from her explosive report.
Her final report was released under the heading: A Compendium on Medicide: A Sub-text to Reproductive Genocide – A Public Health Crisis. The Special Rapporteur on Health’s report details all her other reports contributing to these 22 pages. Her perspective — as she explains in this complete compendium — applies an anti-racist and anti-colonial approach to show how health violations are deeply gendered. She argues that “structural racism, coloniality and gender-based discrimination function as determinants of health inequities” — meaning these forces directly cause unfair health outcomes. Her goal is to “contribute to new knowledge sharing” by connecting the right to health with broader systems of oppression.
Chauke, in this article, tries to distract us by attacking Section 27. This they do by referring again to that UN Watch Israeli front body and its ally the SAZF, which launched a complaint to the HPCSA. They allegedly found Dr Mofokeng guilty of misconduct over social media comments about the Israeli Prime Minister and a UN Watch official.
But timing is everything. Chauke’s article came a day before the no-contest judgement, and it was an open secret that Dr T had won.
The parties (HPCSA and Dr Mofokeng) have agreed to set aside the Health Professions Council and their disciplinary committee’s finding of unprofessional conduct against Dr Mofokeng — it is as if that decision never happened. The First Medical Committee’s finding (September 2025) that Dr Mofokeng was guilty of unprofessional conduct for “using inappropriate language on social media” — and the R10,000 fine — are reviewed and set aside (cancelled).
In addition, it is noted that all subsequent steps are void. The court rules that there are no grounds to continue investigating or prosecuting the complaint. Simply put: the original complaint lodged by the South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) in March 2025 is formally dismissed. Each party will pay their own costs.
Kamohelo Chauke is a great friend of Israel and has been visiting Israel a few times, paid by someone unknown. On May 06, 2025, in full imbongi mode, he wrote: KAMOHELO CHAUKE: Israel’s innovation model, a blueprint for SA’s future. The article does not talk of surveillance and drones used to perpetrate a genocide, which has killed over 75,000 Palestinians and injured thousands, with many hundreds presumed dead under the rubble. A Lancet study’s estimate of 12,200 missing persons is a primary reference point in this context.
So, when he attacks Section 27 for using public funds to defend Dr Tlaleng, it is desperation. They have worked with her, and her case has been vindicated in court.
Hassen Lorgat