- SAHRA says 29 Mandela objects were exported without the permits required by the Heritage Act.
- Makaziwe Mandela says the agency is trying to revive a factual dispute that has already been decided by two courts.
- The Constitutional Court will decide if South Africa’s heritage laws protect culturally significant objects before they leave the country.
The South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) has accused Dr Makaziwe Mandela and Christo Brand of unlawfully exporting 29 objects linked to Nelson Mandela and is asking the Constitutional Court to reverse a Supreme Court of Appeal judgment that dismissed its case. The matter is being heard on Tuesday, 8 September 2026.
The collection includes Mandela’s hearing aids, prison identity documents, passports, handwritten letters and correspondence, honorary medals, family photographs, a fountain pen, clothing, sunglasses, walking sticks, gifts presented by foreign dignitaries, Christo Brand’s broken Robben Island key and his personally inscribed draft Constitution.
SAHRA says the objects were removed from South Africa without the export permits required under the National Heritage Resources Act before they were destined for auction in New York.
The agency, together with Robben Island Museum and the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture, argues that the case is not about ownership of Mandela memorabilia but about protecting South Africa’s national estate from the permanent loss of historically significant artefacts.
How the dispute reached the Constitutional Court
The litigation began in 2022 after Guernsey’s Auction House announced plans to sell the Mandela collection to international buyers.
SAHRA obtained an urgent interdict halting the auction and argued that the objects could not lawfully be exported because no heritage permits had been issued. It also sought orders compelling the return of the collection to South Africa and preventing any future export without regulatory approval.
The High Court dismissed the application, and the Supreme Court of Appeal later upheld that decision. SAHRA now wants the Constitutional Court to overturn both judgments.
SAHRA says the SCA broke the Heritage Act
The appeal turns on SAHRA’s interpretation of Section 32 of the Heritage Act. According to the agency, Parliament deliberately created a preventative system that regulates categories of heritage objects before they leave the country.
Once an object falls within a declared category, the owner must apply for an export permit, allowing SAHRA’s specialists to determine whether it should remain part of the national estate.
SAHRA argues the SCA reversed that process by requiring it to prove in court that every disputed object was already an actual heritage object before it could regulate its export.
The agency warns that this creates a dangerous loophole because heritage authorities cannot assess unknown objects until owners disclose them. If the judgment stands, SAHRA says sellers will effectively decide for themselves whether culturally important objects deserve protection.
In its written submissions, the agency argues that the consequences extend well beyond the Mandela collection and could undermine future efforts to prevent the irreversible loss of South Africa’s heritage.
Makaziwe Mandela says there is no constitutional issue
Dr Makaziwe Mandela opposes the application and argues that SAHRA is attempting to relitigate factual findings under the guise of a constitutional appeal.
She contends that the original case was argued under the National Heritage Resources Act rather than the Constitution and that both the High Court and the SCA correctly concluded that SAHRA failed to establish the legal basis for its claims.
She argues there is no arguable point of constitutional law or general public importance requiring intervention by the Constitutional Court. In her view, the agency is asking the apex court to revisit evidence already considered and rejected.
Brand rejects the prison key narrative
Christo Brand’s answering affidavit focuses on two objects that attracted international attention. The first is the broken Robben Island key repeatedly described as the key that locked Mandela’s prison cell. Brand says that claim is false.
He states that he discovered the already broken key in a desk drawer after arriving at Robben Island in 1979 and insists it was never the operational cell key associated with Mandela.
He further argues that photographs comparing his key with the authenticated museum key demonstrate they are different objects and says SAHRA relied on auction catalogue descriptions and media reports rather than sworn evidence.
The second object is his personally inscribed copy of a precursor to South Africa’s 1996 Constitution. Brand says Mandela signed the document for him and his family as a personal gift after democracy, making it a private memento rather than an official constitutional artefact belonging to the national estate.
Why the ruling matters
SAHRA says the Constitutional Court must answer a question that will shape South Africa’s heritage laws for years to come: should heritage protection begin before historically significant objects leave the country, or only after their significance has already been proven?
The agency argues that Parliament intended the law to prevent heritage loss through a permit system that allows experts to assess objects before export.
Dr Makaziwe Mandela and Brand maintain that the existing legislation already protects genuine heritage objects and that expanding SAHRA’s interpretation would unlawfully broaden the agency’s powers over privately owned property.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
