The UN Special Rapporteur shouldn’t hide behind her title. Serving Francesca Albanese with legal papers wasn’t unlawful, it was an affirmation of due process and the rule of law.
When a sheriff of the High Court of South Africa attempted to deliver U.S.-based court papers to Albanese, outrage followed. Her defenders called the move “rogue,” “disgraceful,” even “scandalous.” Yet the facts tell a different story: the action was lawful, justified, and rooted in one of justice’s core principles - every person’s right to know the case against them and to answer it.
Immunity and Accountability
In September 2025, two American Christian charities - Christian Friends of Israeli Communities and Christians for Israel USA - filed a civil defamation suit against Francesca Albanese in the U.S. District Court of Colorado. They allege she falsely accused them and other faith-based groups of financing “war crimes” and “genocide” in Israel through a July 2, 2025 UN report titled From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide (A/HRC/59/23). The charities claim the report was malicious, defamatory, and factually baseless.
As part of the proceedings, Albanese was served via email and through delivery to her office. But under U.S. civil procedure, she must also be personally served with the initiating court documents.
Complicating matters further is the question of her authority at the time. Albanese’s original three-year mandate as UN Special Rapporteur ended on April 30, 2025. Although the Human Rights Council voted on April 4 to renew it for another term, UN Watch has challenged the validity of that vote. In a letter to Secretary-General António Guterres dated April 28, 2025, UN Watch’s executive director, Hillel Neuer, described the renewal as “invalid” and “without legal effect,” citing procedural irregularities. According to UN Watch, once her initial mandate expired, Albanese no longer held legal authority to act in the name of the United Nations, and thus, as of May 1, 2025, she held no title and no immunity.
“...as of that date, Ms. Albanese will no longer benefit from any privileges or immunities under the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, or any other source of international legal protection afforded to mandate-holders acting in an official capacity. As such, she may be subject to legal proceedings in the United States or other jurisdictions, including civil or criminal liability; may be denied entry or visa access to countries that recognize her lack of official status; and may be subject to targeted sanctions for inciting racism and antisemitism, for which she was recently condemned by the governments of the United States, France, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands, among others, and for providing material support to designated terrorist organizations.”
The United States appears to share UN Watch’s position. On 9 July 2025, the US Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) updated Albanese as a Specially Designated National and Blocked Persons (SDN) List.
The move provoked immediate backlash from within the UN system. The Coordination Committee of the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council issued a strong condemnation of the U.S. sanctions but notably did not argue that Albanese was protected by diplomatic immunity. A month later, on August 8, 2025, a separate group of UN human rights experts went further, explicitly invoking the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. They argued that Washington’s actions violated international law:
“These measures violate international law, including the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. The 1946 Convention accords UN experts such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions. Violating this framework sends a dangerous message, threatens the independence of the Special Procedures system and has a chilling effect on global human rights advocacy. States that disagree with the views of UN experts should constructively engage with them through established processes of diplomatic dialogue.”
The Limits of Diplomatic Protection
South Africa’s Diplomatic Immunity and Privileges Act gives effect to the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, extending its protections to the UN and its officials within South Africa. However, the Act does not define the term “officials.” Section 6 further states that “officials and experts” of the UN participating in an international conference or meeting convened in South Africa enjoy such immunities but only for the duration of the event, and only if the Minister of Foreign Affairs recognizes the gathering in a notice published in the Government Gazette.
Special Rapporteurs are considered “experts” by the UN, yet they are not UN officials. They are unpaid, voluntary, and serve on temporary mandates. The 1946 Convention grants experts performing missions for the UN immunity “in respect of words spoken or written and acts done by them in the course of the performance of their mission,” covering the duration of their mission and related travel. That protection continues even after their mission ends but only for acts performed while officially on duty.
It remains unclear whether a Special Rapporteur enjoys diplomatic immunity in South Africa at all, unless their name appears on the Minister’s Section 9 register, which lists individuals immune from the country’s civil and criminal jurisdiction. Albanese’s name does not appear on this register. Equally significant is the fact that the 23rd Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture, hosted by the Nelson Mandela Foundation, was not classified as an international conference or meeting, and no notice was published in the Government Gazette to that effect.
Taken together with the U.S. sanctions and the defamation suit filed in Colorado, it seems the U.S. government regards Albanese’s Special Rapporteur term as having officially expired on April 30, 2025. Her controversial report was released two months later, arguably outside the scope of her UN mission.
To claim that Albanese still enjoys immunity raises troubling implications. It would place UN Special Rapporteurs above the reach of the law, granting them a shield against accountability for potentially false and reputationally damaging claims, with little risk of legal consequence.
Why Service in South Africa Was Lawful
Some commentators claim the sheriff overstepped by attempting to serve her on South African soil. In reality, the Superior Courts Act explicitly allows service on any person present in the country, regardless of nationality. South African courts routinely assist foreign jurisdictions by effecting such service, a practice known as international judicial comity, and a cornerstone of global legal cooperation.
So when Albanese entered the Republic to give an address at an event that was not an international conference, she clearly came within the reach of lawful process. The sheriff acted exactly as empowered: ensuring that a person accused in a civil action is informed of it, following a request issued by the Director-General in the Department of Justice.
The principle of audi alteram partem, “hear the other side”, is not a Latin flourish; it is the foundation of procedural fairness. Service of process is how that right is realized. It does not punish the defendant, it gives them a voice. Albanese’s refusal to accept service of U.S.-based litigation papers simply because she was outside the U.S. achieves the opposite of fairness, keeping her effectively in the dark about proceedings that directly affect her.
No One Above the Law
It is reported that Albanese’s representative told the sheriff “that she refused service and would always refuse service at any and every attempt.” South Africa’s Constitution doesn’t carve out special rules for famous or powerful people. It enshrines equality before the law, insisting that no one is above it. In fact, when the shoe is on the other foot and a foreign representative refuses to waive immunity and does not comply with a legal obligation in a local dispute, it can result in an official request from DIRCO for that international organisation to immediately recall the offending representative.
For the government to interfere in any way and block the sheriff’s service on Albanese would create a two-tier justice system: one for ordinary citizens, and another for those who, depending on interpretation, either hold or once held international titles and have friends who themselves used to be in high places. The rule of law must reach the powerful just as firmly as it does everyone else.
The attempt to serve Albanese is not a political vendetta or a manipulation of local legal processes for “Zionist political warfare,” as one zealous defender of Albanese claimed. It is a procedural step, the first step, in giving effect to a lawful civil complaint about reputational harm and incitement. If Albanese believes the allegations in the legal papers are false, she should welcome the chance to clear her name in open court. Justice is not a threat to truth; it is the only way to test it.
In an era when speech travels instantly across borders, accountability must travel with it. If one’s words can damage reputations globally, responsibility for those words must also be global. This episode tests South Africa’s commitment to its constitutional ideals. Do we still believe that justice is universal, and that the rule of law applies equally to everyone, even visiting dignitaries with friends in high places? Serving Albanese was not an affront to justice. It was its affirmation: a quiet but vital reminder that in South Africa, no name, title, or ideology should stand above the reach of the law.
Shimron Shapiro
Attorney of the High Court of South Africa
