News / South Africa

Ilse de Lange
1 minute read
23 Mar 2017
5:46 am

EFF’s Primrose Sonti to challenge merits of Intimidation Act at SCA

Ilse de Lange

Sonti intends to challenge the constitutionality of the law, which she says is 'over-broad'.

FILE PICTURE: EFF member Primrose Sonti during an interview on May 14, 2014 in Marikana, South Africa. Sonti, a resident of Wonderkop, is leaving the mining township to become a parliamentarian for the Economic Freedom Fighters. She believes she will do well, despite her lack of formal education. (Photo by Gallo Images / Foto24 / Felix Dlangamandla)

EFF MP Primrose Sonti is set to take her legal battle about the constitutionality of the Intimidation Act, in terms of which she can be sent to jail for up to 10 years, to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).

Sonti is facing a charge of intimidation in the Germiston Magistrates’ Court for allegedly threatening to kill a Marikana resident and to burn her house if she did not withdraw criminal charges against Lonmin mineworker and murder-accused, Anele Zonke.

Sonti denied threatening the woman and claimed she was trying to get her and Zonke to resolve their dispute though their families.

Zonke and several co-accused are facing murder charges in the North West High Court, resulting from the deaths of several people during the Lonmin wildcat strike, which preceded the Marikana massacre of August 2012.

Judge Nomsa Khumalo in December dismissed a legal challenge by Sonti and Germiston community leader, General Alfred Moyo, to the validity and constitutionality of sections of the Intimidation Act, but yesterday granted them leave to appeal against her ruling at the SCA.

Moyo was charged with intimidation after an altercation at the Primrose police station in October 2012 with two high-ranking officers, during which he allegedly said there would be bloodshed.

Sonti and Moyo said the Intimidation Act was over-broad, deprived them of their right to remain silent and violated their right to freedom of expression. They submitted that the Act was unconstitutional, because it criminalised a wide range of expressions, including idle threats made at a time of anger.

For more news your way, follow The Citizen on Facebook and Twitter.