In a significant ruling that reignites debates around freedom of expression and race relations in South Africa, opposition politician Julius Malema has been found guilty of hate speech by the country’s equality court, following inflammatory remarks made during a rally in 2022. As the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party, Malema is no stranger to controversy in a nation still grappling with the legacy of apartheid, even 31 years after its official end.
The court’s conviction stems from comments made by Malema in response to an incident where a white man allegedly assaulted an EFF member. At the rally, he stated: “No white man is going to beat me up… you must never be scared to kill. A revolution demands that at some point there must be killing.” His words, which were deemed to potentially incite harm, have sparked widespread condemnation.
The equality court ruled that such statements “demonstrated an intent to incite harm,” emphasising the line between acceptable political speech and calls for violence. The court noted, “Whilst calling out someone who behaves as a racist may be acceptable, calling for them to be killed is not.” This ruling raises essential questions about the boundaries of political rhetoric and the responsibilities leaders hold in their speech amid ongoing racial tensions.
Two complaints brought against Malema triggered the court case: one by South Africa’s Human Rights Commission and another from an individual who claimed to feel threatened due to the politician’s remarks. The court’s judgement articulated a strong stance against “vigilantism,” highlighting the extreme nature of Malema’s calls in the context of a violent past.
Despite the ruling, the EFF has mounted a vigorous defence of its leader, asserting that the court’s interpretation of Malema’s speech is “fundamentally flawed” and represents a misreading of the context and its meaning. The party argued, “It assumes that the reasonable listener is incapable of understanding metaphor, revolutionary rhetoric, or the history of liberation struggles.”
The repercussions of Malema’s rhetoric extend beyond the courtroom. In June of this year, he was denied entry into the UK, with the Home Office declaring him “non-conducive to the public good” due to his controversial statements regarding race and violence. The EFF condemned this action as an attempt to suppress democratic debate.
In the international arena, Malema’s rhetoric has not gone unnoticed. In May, during a meeting with South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa, former US President Donald Trump played a video of Malema singing an anti-apartheid song that includes the lyrics “kill the Boer (Afrikaner); kill the farmer.” Afrikaner lobby groups have campaigned against this song, seeking to have it banned, yet South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal has maintained that such protest songs are not meant to be interpreted literally, reinforcing the complex landscape of free speech in South Africa.
The Democratic Alliance (DA) has welcomed today’s ruling, stating that it is a triumph for the rule of law, the Constitution, and for all South Africans who value a free, fair, and non-racial society. The DA commended the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) for its persistence in bringing the case against Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), to court.
“For too long, the world has watched as Julius Malema has incited violence, hatred, and division, attempting to unstitch the very fabric of South African society,” the DA asserted in a statement following the court’s decision. They highlighted that Malema’s hate speech has not only caused domestic strife but also placed South Africa’s global reputation at risk.
The Freedom Front Plus (VF Plus) also welcomed the court’s ruling, emphasising that it had pursued legal action after Malema’s inflammatory remarks sparked outrage and represented a threat to social cohesion. The party’s leaders insisted that the hate speech law is designed to maintain peace and order within society, asserting that South Africa cannot afford leaders who advocate division.