The alleged racism incident at Johannesburg’s Gold Reef City in 2023 – when a black woman posted a video on TikTok accusing three white friends of directing ‘monkey sound effects’ at her family – is yet to be resolved.

In 2023, the Booysens Magistrate’s Court in Johannesburg granted an interim protection order against TikTok user and University of Cape Town student Njabulo Madlanga for posting the video on the social media platform. Her widely shared video accused Reece Lopes, Milan Kruijer and Jude Fraser-Grant of racism, but provided no proof.

The interim protection order was made a final order of the court on March 1, 2024, when the Booysens Magistrate’s Court found that Madlanga had engaged in harassment.

The three applicants have alleged that, in addition to harassment, Madlanga had committed the crimes of criminal defamation, crimen injuria and intimidation. Recently, AfriForum’s Private Prosecution Unit (PPU), which represents them, questioned why the case had not yet reached the prosecution stage. The PPU stated that it would continue with private prosecution if the National Prosecuting Unit (NPU) decided not to prosecute.

Meanwhile, Madlanga’s attorney, Rupert Candy, told Caxton Local Media that his client will appeal the March 2024 harassment judgment against her. He also provided her affidavit that denies she is guilty of any crimes.

The events that sparked the harassment judgment Madlanga seeks to overturn, as well as the criminal charges, happened on July 6, 2023. While Lopes, Kruijer and Fraser-Grant alleged that they were wrongly labelled as racists in her video, Madlanga maintains that her video was justifiable.

She also denies that her conduct was intended to cause serious injury to the dignity of the complainants.

The altercation

The altercation between Madlanga, Lopes, Kruijer and Fraser-Grant took place while they were queueing for the Storm Chaser ride at Gold Reef City’s amusement park. According to affidavits by the three, they noticed three women staring at them, but did not think much of it.

Unknown to them (according to their affidavits), Madlanga had logged onto TikTok and filmed herself saying: “So, let me tell you something, we in this line yeah, we in a line, in this place, and… Gold Reef… people will make sound effects if you are black, I’m just saying, monkey sound effects, so just know that.” Fraser-Grant, Lopes and Kruijer can be briefly seen in the background.

A second video was posted a bit later, clearly identifying Lopes, Kruijer and Fraser-Grant. Within a short time, the video had been viewed almost three million times and the three had received death threats and were branded racists.

According to their affidavits, Lopes, Kruijer and Fraser-Grant only became aware that they were trending on social media on the Monday after they visited Gold Reef City, when they were alerted to the video Madlanga had posted.

The trio claimed no racist events took place and that they were unaware they were being filmed.

Madlanga denies intent to harm

Madlanga does not deny making the videos. In her affidavit, she states that she was at Gold Reef City with her family when the incident happened.

According to her, the three youngsters were immediately behind them in the queue, close enough for them to hear each other’s conversations. Also according to her, Lopes told his friends that Madlanga’s group ‘pushed’ in. Madlanga says if they did, it was not intentional.

According to her, Lopes and Kruijer were talking about why women wore make-up as they look better without it. “I was wearing make-up and something about the way they were speaking made it clear that they were talking about me.”

She told her sister that Lopes’ earring was unfashionable and they both laughed.

It was then, according to her statement, that Lopes and Kruijer ‘became visibly angry and Mr Lopes started making monkey sounds’.

Madlanga states that she felt degraded, humiliated and embarrassed and while feeling ‘powerless’, she started recording the video on her phone and published it on TikTok.

She said she spoke loud enough for the three to hear what she was saying. While she argues that this had allowed them to deny her allegations if they were untrue, the three maintain not having been aware of her making the video.

When requested by her followers to identify the three, Madlanga published a second video she had recorded. “I believe it was wholly reasonable and justifiable for me to publish the videos.”

Madlanga states racism has no place in South Africa and must be exposed. The comments made about these videos are, according to her statement, not her responsibility.

She states that she found out about the order and case against her once the media published articles on it.

She questions the involvement of the PPU and says the unit usually pursues high-profile and political cases. “It is clear from Mr Lopes and his friends’ affidavits that the AfriForum PPU is anxious to secure test-case convictions for cybercrimes, crimen injuria and criminal defamation against someone who has no concrete evidence of the racism of which they are complaining.”

Madlanga’s criticism of the final harassment order

 In her notice to appeal, Madlanga states that the court erred in finding that she harassed the complainant. While she argued that she lacked mens rea (intentional or negligent conduct), the court rejected her argument. In addition to qualifying this as an error by the court, she says that the court should have given more consideration to the time lapse between the incident and the institution of harassment proceedings.

Because her version and that of the complainants differed materially, Madlanga argues that the Plascon-Evans Rule should have applied. This rule states that, in such cases, the court must accept the respondent’s version unless it is so far-fetched or implausible that it can be rejected outright.

Lastly, she says that the court should have viewed the trio’s application as an abuse of court process, claiming that their application was brought ‘at the behest of’ AfriForum, and to make an example of her, setting up a test case and sending a message to blacks that they should not accuse whites of racism.

A court date has not been set and both Candy and the PPU are awaiting the decision from the NPA.

The criminal charges that Madlanga address in her affidavit are listed below, along with her responses.

• Criminal defamation: Madlanga’s affidavit points out that this crime has been abolished and denies having committed it.
• Crimen injuria: This term is described as committing unlawful and intentional conduct that seriously injures the complainants’ dignity or privacy. Madlanga responds by denying that her conduct has caused serious injury. She claims that she had acted reasonably in calling out racism. Lastly, Madlanga denies having the intention to cause injury.
• Intimidation: It occurs when a person unlawfully and intentionally threatens another with harm to force them to act (or not act) in a particular way. Madlanga denies intimidating the complainants at all, adding that she did not act unlawfully or with the intention to intimidate.

 **Before the publication of the first article on this saga in October 2023, Caxton Local Media contacted Madlanga for comment, to which she said: “I had an interaction with some people on TikTok.” She claimed she was unaware of the protection order against her or any criminal charges. When informed that a protection order was granted, she said: “Granted for what? I don’t know about it.” She then commented: “What is this call in regards to? I’ve never heard of this stuff; I didn’t post anything else and that is what happened on the day.”

Breaking news at your fingertips… Follow Caxton Network News on Facebook and join our WhatsApp channel.