The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has responded to criticism over its controversial settlement with the Beloftebos wedding venue, defending both the process and the outcome after one of the affected same-sex couples accused the body of sidelining them.
The response follows a MambaOnline report detailing how the Equality Court-approved agreement, finalised in April, excluded Sasha-Lee Watling and Megan Watling, despite their role in bringing renewed attention to the case in 2020.
What the Settlement Says
In the agreement, the Beloftebos owners, Coia and Andries de Villiers, “appreciate” that their conduct “constituted a prima facie case of unfair discrimination.” The de Villiers apologise to only one of the two couples they turned away, Alex Thorne and Alex Lu, “for offence and hurt” that they caused in 2017. The other couple, the Watlings, are not mentioned in the settlement.
While Beloftebos has since stopped hosting weddings, the de Villiers undertook that, should they resume doing so, they “will not refuse these services to any person on the basis of that person’s sexual orientation.”
The agreement also acknowledges that Beloftebos’ owners, their families and staff “have suffered tremendous personal hurt and financial losses as a result of hateful comments that have been published about them and misunderstandings arising out of this matter.” Notably, the settlement does not provide for Beloftebos to pay any penalties or compensation to the couples affected by the owners’ actions.
The Watlings say they only learned of the settlement after the fact.
SAHRC: Settlement Was Limited to Parties in Court
In its reply to MambaOnline, the SAHRC emphasised that the settlement was strictly between itself and the de Villiers, as part of a court-directed mediation process.
The commission confirmed that neither of the two couples who were refused service participated in the mediation or were consulted before the agreement was finalised.
“Alexandra Thorne and Alex Lu did not form part of the mediation proceedings and were therefore not consulted prior to settlement,” the SAHRC said, adding that the agreement “does not purport to settle or compromise any private claim by any person who was not a party to the agreement.”
The commission stressed that only it, as the applicant, and Beloftebos, as the respondent, formed part of the court-ordered mediation.
Why the Watlings Were Excluded
The Watlings’ absence from the settlement, including the lack of any reference to their experience or an apology directed at them, has been one of the central criticisms of the agreement.
Addressing their exclusion, the SAHRC argued that the Watlings had withdrawn their complaint from the commission and chose to pursue their own legal route.
As a result, the matter proceeded as public-interest litigation rather than a case brought on behalf of individual complainants.
“The Commission was not acting on behalf of the Watlings or any other person or persons… and had no authority to settle any personal claim on their behalf,” it said.
The SAHRC added that, “This should not be read as a denial of their experience.”
It further explained that the omission of an apology to the Watlings stemmed from the fact that they were not part of the mediation or respondents in the case and are continuing their own legal action against Beloftebos.
Consultation and Confidentiality
On the broader question of whether it is appropriate to settle matters without consulting with the complainants, the SAHRC maintained that it must act within its constitutional mandate and in line with court processes.
It noted that the mediation was confidential and that settlement terms could not be shared with individuals outside the process before being finalised.
However, the commission added that “the broader parties, including Ms Watling and Ms Watling, were invited to provide any input they wished… before the mediation,” which, it says, they did not.
Public Interest vs Personal Justice
The SAHRC maintains that the settlement achieved a public-interest outcome, including an acknowledgement by Beloftebos that refusing wedding services to same-sex couples constitutes unfair discrimination and a commitment that such conduct will not be repeated.
The Watlings, however, argue that the agreement falls short by offering no compensation to those affected and imposing no penalties, and not fully engaging with the limits of religious belief in commercial settings.
The commission’s responses clarify the procedural framework within which it operated but leave some of these broader concerns unresolved, particularly around accountability, transparency, and the role of complainants in cases brought in the public interest.
