- Prof Thuli Madonsela says personal safety concerns forced her to speak publicly about events surrounding her late partner’s estate.
- Court papers challenge the validity of a purported 2025 Will and raise questions about executor conduct and estate reporting.
- Madonsela insists there is no dispute with the Foxton children, saying the conflict centres on estate control and alleged distortions of Foxton’s wishes.
When Prof Thuli Madonsela addressed the media on 17 December 2025, it was not to invite public judgment on a private loss, but to explain why silence was no longer an option.
Nearly six months after the death of her life partner, Richard Edward “Dick” Foxton, she says a combination of security concerns, disputed estate processes and a sustained media narrative compelled her to speak.
“I would have continued to handle the transitional challenges of my partner’s passing in a quiet, dignified private manner,” she said, “were it not for security concerns and a relentless character assassination campaign in the media.”
Attempted eviction and unauthorised access
Madonsela revealed that less than 48 hours after Foxton’s death, an attempt was made to evict her from the Johannesburg apartment she and Foxton regarded as their primary home. The instruction was not delivered through a court order or a sheriff, but through a message posted in a family WhatsApp group directing that the apartments be locked and left unoccupied.
At the time, the individual who issued the instruction was neither a member of the Foxton family nor an executor of the deceased estate. The estate had not yet been reported to the Master of the High Court, and no executor had been appointed.
The attempted eviction occurred while Madonsela was still receiving mourners together with her children and Foxton’s son, Justin Foxton, who had travelled from KwaZulu-Natal to grieve his father at his last place of residence. “I was felled to my knees by the sudden loss of the man I loved,” Madonsela said. “This headwind blindsided me.”
When she objected to the eviction attempt, Madonsela said she was told the apartment was not her home and that South African law does not recognise a “common law wife”. She rejected that framing, saying she never claimed such a status. “I said I was his life partner, and that this was our home,” she said.
She explained that she and Foxton had lived as partners for nearly a decade, shared holidays there and treated the apartment as their base whenever she was in Gauteng. A legal opinion she obtained shortly after the incident confirmed, she said, that under the Constitutional Court’s decision in Bwanya and amendments to the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act, she qualifies as a permanent life partner with spousal rights.
Madonsela said her decision to speak publicly was ultimately triggered by safety concerns following reports stating that the home she occupies had been independently valued at about R10 million in November.
“That shocked me,” she said. “I have never authorised anyone to access my home for a valuation or for anything else.”
She explained that a valuation of that nature requires physical access to the property. “The thought of someone having been in my house without authorisation left a chilling effect on my family,” she said, adding that a security expert advised her to place this information on record publicly so that any breach would be formally noted.
Legal disputes and claims against executors
Central to the dispute are allegations concerning how Foxton’s estate was reported to the Master of the High Court. Madonsela pointed to electronic documents on the Master’s portal, which, she says, falsely reflect that the deceased had no children and misstate the relationship between the deceased and one of the executors. “These are not clerical errors,” she said. “They are material misrepresentations.”
These concerns form part of her court application to have the executors removed. In her papers, she raises issues of under-reporting of estate assets, refusal to provide full disclosure regarding trusts linked to Foxton’s finances, and what she describes as a lack of impartiality toward all beneficiaries and claimants.
Despite suggestions of a bitter family feud, Madonsela has consistently rejected that framing. “There has never been a bitter dispute with the Foxton family,” she said. “My legal dispute is with the executors and concerns the administration of the estate.”
She confirmed that she wrote to the Foxton family requesting a meeting to discuss the estate transparently and in the spirit of ubuntu. Justin Foxton responded positively and does not oppose her challenge to the purported 2025 Will. Other family members did not respond.
Madonsela stressed that she is not seeking to benefit unlawfully from the estate. Her application asks the court to declare the purported 2025 Will invalid, citing non-compliance with the legal requirements for a valid Will and unresolved concerns regarding authenticity. She also questions why the 2025 document reinstates an executor who had been removed in earlier Wills, while an independent fiduciary previously included as a safeguard no longer appears.
Among the most painful moments
Among the most painful moments, she said, was receiving a demand that she stop referring to herself as Foxton’s life partner. “That demand is irrational,” she said. “The very Will being defended refers to me as his partner.”
She pointed to consistent conduct before and after Foxton’s death, including family interactions, funeral arrangements and public acknowledgements, as confirmation of their relationship. “Every speaker at the funeral celebrated our love,” she said. “Except one.”
As the matter proceeds through the courts, Madonsela insists her public intervention was not about winning sympathy or litigating through the media. “I wanted the court to judge these matters, or the family to settle them,” she said. “I was forced to speak because silence was being weaponised against me.”
For Madonsela, the past six months have been defined by mourning while simultaneously defending the memory and intentions of the man she loved. “This,” she said, “is a grave injustice.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
