Julius Malema, the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters, is not a stranger to South Africa’s courts. Over the years, he has faced several cases where his words have been tested against the law. One of the most well-known was the “Kill the Boer” matter, where the courts had to decide whether singing the struggle song amounted to hate speech. The Supreme Court of Appeal eventually held that the song was not a literal call to kill farmers but was still offensive and harmful in the modern context. In another case, the High Court dismissed an application by Minister Pravin Gordhan, who said Malema had called him names that incited violence. These cases have shaped the legal debate in South Africa about where political speech ends and hate speech begins.
The Brackenfell background
The latest case comes from events linked to Brackenfell High School in 2020. There had been a social media storm over a matric farewell event, which was said to be only for white learners. The EFF organized protests outside the school. Tensions flared between protesting members and residents. Videos showed violence on both sides, including racial insults and physical assaults.
Two years later, in October 2022, Malema addressed an EFF assembly in Cape Town. In his speech, he referred to the Brackenfell incident. He told his supporters that true revolutionaries must never be afraid to kill and that violence must be met with violence. He also referred to a white man who had been seen on video assaulting EFF members, saying there should have been a follow-up to “attend to him properly.” The speech led to hundreds of complaints to the South African Human Rights Commission.
The complainants
The Human Rights Commission took the matter to the Equality Court, joined by Dante van Wyk, a resident who said he was the person Malema had singled out in the speech. Van Wyk said he and his partner received threatening messages after Malema’s remarks and that he had gone into hiding.
What the court had to decide
The court had to weigh Malema’s right to freedom of expression against the limits placed by the Constitution and the Equality Act. Freedom of expression is a vital right in South Africa, but the law makes it clear that speech that advocates hatred based on race and incites harm is not protected. This was affirmed in the Constitutional Court case of Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission, where the court said hate speech is speech that expresses extreme hostility and incites discrimination or violence.
The judge also referred to recent cases such as Afriforum v Economic Freedom Fighters in 2024, where the courts explained how songs and slogans must be looked at in context. In SAHRC v Masuku, the Constitutional Court stressed that courts must use an objective test, asking how a reasonable person would understand the words, rather than how the speaker claims to have intended them.
The evidence
Experts were called on both sides. A forensic linguist analyzed Malema’s words and said they were not metaphorical but a direct incitement to violence, especially against white men labelled as racists. On the other hand, a political scientist argued that the speech was political rhetoric, critical of white supremacy, and should not be seen as targeting all white people.
The court found the linguistic analysis more convincing. The judge said Malema’s words were not coded or metaphorical but plain instructions that violence was acceptable and even required. Referring to someone by race and urging followers to deal with him in an “isolated place” went beyond robust political speech.
The ruling
On 27 August 2025, the Equality Court ruled that Malema’s statements amounted to hate speech under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act. The judge declared the comments unlawful. Malema and the EFF were ordered to apologize publicly and to pay damages to the complainants.
Why this ruling is crucial
The case is important for several reasons. First, it shows that South African courts are willing to draw a firm line when political leaders cross into hate speech. Freedom of expression remains a protected right, but it does not include incitement to violence. Second, the judgment confirms that the Equality Act provides remedies not only for groups but also for individuals who are targeted. Third, the ruling gives further clarity to political parties that revolutionary or militant language will not shield them when their words encourage violence.
Malema’s long battle with words
For Malema, this is another chapter in a long-running legal battle over his rhetoric. Each case has raised questions about how South Africa, with its painful racial history, should balance free speech with protecting dignity and equality. The courts have at times given space for struggle songs and political slogans, but they have now found that Malema went too far when he told his followers not to be afraid to kill.
What lies ahead
The ruling will likely be appealed, as has happened in previous cases involving Malema. Whatever the outcome on appeal, the Equality Court’s decision adds to South Africa’s growing body of hate speech jurisprudence. It shows the courts’ willingness to treat words seriously when they risk fueling racial hostility.
The case serves as a reminder that leaders are accountable for what they say. Political rhetoric may be passionate, but when it crosses into incitement to violence, the law will step in.
Leave a Reply