Handing down judgment on Wednesday, the court stated that by telling someone never to be scared to kill, Malema was inciting harm and violence.
EFF leader Julius Malema’s woes surrounding hate speech are far from over, with the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) stating plans to ensure that Malema is punished for his transgression.
The SAHRC welcomed the judgment handed down by the Western Cape Division of the Equality Court on Wednesday, which found Malema guilty of hate speech and inciting violence.
Hate speech
The highly publicised case stems from an incendiary speech at an EFF rally in Cape Town in 2022 in which Malema told supporters that they must “never be scared to kill” and that “any racist” who attacked EFF members or leaders “is an application to meet your maker with immediate effect”.
Malema’s remarks came just two years after a violent encounter between EFF members and white parents of children at a school in Brackenfell, Cape Town, in a protest over alleged racism.
Malema referred to an incident captured on video, where a group of people confronted members of the EFF who had been protesting outside the high school following allegations that it held a matric dance for white pupils only.
He also said: “A revolution demands at some point there must be killing because the killing is part of a revolutionary act.”
ALSO READ: WATCH: Malema not ‘intimidated’ by Trump’s call for his arrest
SAHRC
The case against Malema was brought by the SAHRC and Dante van Wyk, who claimed Malema was referring to him in his speech.
SAHRC spokesperson Given Makhuvele said the Equality Court found Malema’s speech included clear exhortations to violence against a specific racial group—white men—based on race and political belief.
“The commission notes with appreciation the Equality Court’s careful consideration of the context, ideological framing, and effect of the impugned statements.
“The judgment reaffirms that freedom of expression, while fundamental, does not extend to advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to cause harm, particularly where such statements are made by persons in positions of power or influence,” Makhuvele said.
Not over for Malema
Makhuvele said that the matter is far from over for Malema.
“The judgment relates only to the merits of the complaint, with a separate process to follow pertaining to the relief sought. The Commission will engage this process fully, guided by the principles of justice, accountability, and the need to uphold constitutional values in a diverse and democratic society.
“The SAHRC remains committed to building a society where robust political engagement is not used to incite violence or deepen racial polarisation,” Makhuvele said.
EFF reacts
Reacting to Judge Mark Sher’s ruling on Wednesday, the EFF said the judgment was a “grave distortion of history, philosophy, and the nature of political speech” in a democratic society, and mistook Malema’s comments as literal instructions to kill white people.
“The conclusion is fundamentally flawed,” the EFF added, saying it deliberately misreads both the context and the meaning of the speech.
“This interpretation strips the speech of its political, historical and ideological context, reducing a revolutionary critique to criminality.
“It assumes that the reasonable listener is incapable of understanding metaphor, revolutionary rhetoric or the history of liberation struggles,” the EFF said.
Court ruling
In its ruling, the Equality Court rejected arguments that the statements were merely political commentary or metaphorical in nature, finding instead that they constituted direct, unambiguous incitement to violence based on a prohibited ground, cloaked in ideological language.
The judgment recognised the danger posed when public figures and political leaders use rhetoric that undermines human dignity and social cohesion.
The Equality Court ruled that the statements were made with a clear intention to incite harm and promote or propagate hatred, and therefore constituted hate speech under the Equality Act.
ALSO READ: AfriForum welcomes UK decision to deny Malema a visa
