Solidarity and Joburg clash over a removed billboard as both sides dispute legality, settlement claims and political motives.
The bitter war of words between civic organisation Solidarity and the city of Joburg over the removal of a 70m-long billboard banner claiming South Africa is the most racially regulated country in the world, continued yesterday, despite claims a settlement had been reached in a court action.
Last Thursday, Solidarity CEO Dirk Hermann confirmed the court papers against premier Panyaza Lesufi and the city were served after the removal of the billboard banner on the M1.
Solidarity Research Institute (SRI) spokesperson Connie Mulder said the city would return Solidarity’s 70m banner free of charge following a settlement agreement that was made an order of the court.
Disputed billboard triggers legal tension
Despite a request, he did not provide a copy of the court order.
For its part, the city maintained its position that the banner was put up illegally, without its permission.
ALSO READ: Boks need an apology, IRR
“The city emphasises that this action was taken solely due to non-compliance with the Outdoor Advertising bylaws of 2009.
“These bylaws require any organisation wishing to erect, install, or display outdoor advertising on city-owned property to apply for and obtain formal approval. No such application was received from Solidarity and the banner was installed without permission, in direct contravention of municipal regulations.
“City officials acted strictly within their legal mandate to enforce the city’s bylaws. The decision was routine, administrative, and unrelated to the upcoming G20 summit. Any suggestion that the removal was politically motivated or influenced by external events is entirely unfounded.”
Joburg alleges bylaw violations
A statement on the city’s website said: “Despite this clear breach of the law, Solidarity launched an urgent application before the Gauteng Division of the High Court seeking the reinstatement or return of the banner.
“In the interests of avoiding protracted litigation and unnecessary public expenditure, the city – after consulting its legal representative – offered to return the banner on the simple condition that it is not reinstalled until Solidarity complied with the bylaw requirements.
ALSO READ: Banner battle between Solidarity and Lesufi continues
“Solidarity rejected this reasonable offer and further demanded that the city concede to unlawful conduct, a request the city firmly declined,” according to the online statement.
It added: “Following the city’s filing of its answering papers, which highlighted several deficiencies in Solidarity’s application, Solidarity approached the city on 17 November, 2025, proposing that the matter be removed from the court roll and the banner be collected from city offices. Solidarity also abandoned its request for the city to admit wrongdoing. The city accepted this proposal, which was effectively identical to the initial offer made on 14 November.”
Mulder said that Solidarity was finalising an agreement with the advertising company to return the money. “If the company does not pay back the money, Solidarity will sue it.
Solidarity demands accountability
“Solidarity also erected 38 more billboards with the same message in Johannesburg.”
Betereinders co-founder pastor Johan Erasmus said that because paradoxes in South Africa do not make for a tidy billboard, its “Stronger Together Springbok” billboard will have to do.
ALSO READ: Solidarity takes CoJ and Lesufi to court over G20 billboard removal
Erasmus said while there may be an ideologically zealous – sometimes even vengeful – use and abuse of B-BBEE policies, there can also be many Afrikaners who do not primarily see or present themselves as victims and who experience cordial, respectful relationships with their black fellow citizens.
“If the only story told about Afrikaners is that they are victims of a vicious black majority, leading to sweeping statements like, ‘Terrible things are happening in South Africa’, then those halft-ruths quickly become a lie.
“It may be fair for some to dismiss our billboard as naïve and sentimental, but it is equally fair to describe the Solidarity billboard as cynical and reductionist,” he added.
Solidarity billboard ‘cynical and reductionist’
Erasmus said perhaps the truth lies somewhere between the Rainbow-Nation Castle Lager ads of the past and the more lucrative campaigns built on a narrative of perpetual white persecution.
“Many Afrikaners are concerned about the misuse of B-BBEE and have legitimate questions about its implementation, yet many of these same Afrikaners recognise that it is economically very difficult – and often opportunistic – to argue that there is a white economic genocide.
ALSO READ: Who is lying in banner battle?
“Many will agree that Afrikaner farmers have been victims of tragic farm attacks, but those same Afrikaners can also point you to countless farmers who don’t even know where their house keys are because they do not feel threatened.”
