Judgment has been reserved in the Nelson Mandela Foundation’s (NMF) application for AfriForum’s Ernst Roets to be held in contempt of court.
Representing the Nelson Mandela Foundation (NMF), advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi argued in the Equality Court on Wednesday that the Afrikaner lobby group’s deputy CEO should be jailed for 30 days for being in contempt of court for tweeting a picture of the old South African flag hours after “gratuitous” displays of it were ruled to be hate speech.
Meanwhile, Advocate Cedric Puckrin, representing AfriForum, said the tweet was sent in Roets’ personal capacity and therefore had nothing to do with the lobby group.
At the Equality Court in Johannesburg on Wednesday morning, Ngcukaitobi earlier argued that anyone who read Roets’ tweet would interpret it as being from AfriForum, as it came from one of its leaders only hours after the judgment.
According to Ngcukaitobi, a proper reading of the recent ruling shows that Roets was clearly prohibited from displaying the flag.
His doing so amounts to a deliberate undermining of the courts for which he should be appropriately punished, Ngcukaitobi further argued.
Ngcukaitobi also questioned whether Roets needed to include a picture of the flag in his tweet, which he claimed was an “academic question” and therefore legal according to the new ruling.
Judge Colin Lamont presided on Wednesday over the urgent application brought by the NMF seeking to hold AfriForum in contempt of court over Roets’ tweet. Roets tweeted the flag on August 21 along with the question “Did I just commit hate speech?”.
READ MORE: Equality Court rules ‘gratuitous display’ of the old SA flag constitutes hate speech
In another tweet, he argued that his use of the flag was legal as it was for “academic purposes”. He is also arguing that he tweeted it in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the organisation.
The Equality Act does not protect academic displays of the flag that were made in bad faith, a statement released by the foundation said at the time.
He further argued that the August 21 judgment must be enforced strictly, as it was a declaratory order which constituted more than just advice.
For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.
