The Economic Freedom Fighters has rejected the Equality Court’s ruling that found its leader Julius Malema guilty of hate speech, describing the judgment as a deliberate distortion of history and political rhetoric.

EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo said the ruling “fundamentally misreads” the context, philosophy and intent of Malema’s words, arguing that the speech was rooted in the liberation tradition, referencing South Africa’s history of structural violence and resistance.

“The language of revolution cannot be sanitised to comfort the sensitivities of those who continue to enjoy the fruits of colonial dispossession and have never experienced racial violence whatsoever,” Thambo said.

The party insisted Malema was not calling for the killing of white people, but highlighting the irreconcilable conflict between white supremacy and Black liberation thought.

Thambo maintained the real violence lay in the daily experiences of landlessness, unemployment and racism endured by Black South Africans.

He confirmed the party would appeal the decision at the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The Equality Court in Cape Town ruled that remarks made by Malema at the EFF’s Western Cape Provincial People’s Assembly in October 2022, where he told supporters they should “never be scared to kill” and declared that “racism is violence and violence can only be ended by violence”, constituted hate speech and incitement to violence under Section 10 of the Equality Act.

Judge Mark Sher found the statements amounted to exhortations to kill white males linked to the 2020 Brackenfell High School clashes, where EFF supporters and parents had violently confronted each other over alleged racial exclusion at a matric dance event.

Sher ruled that the comments were not abstract revolutionary theory but “a clear instruction” that carried the potential to incite large-scale racial violence.

He further held that the EFF, by endorsing and defending the remarks, was jointly liable with Malema for legal costs, including expert fees.

The decision has been welcomed by other parties and civil society groups who argue it affirms the constitutional limits of free expression when it incites violence and racial hatred.

The Democratic Alliance hailed the judgment as a triumph for the rule of law.

Party leader John Steenhuisen said the ruling reaffirmed that political leaders must be held accountable for reckless rhetoric that undermines national unity.

“We hope that this ruling will serve as a warning, and a guide to all Leaders in South Africa to conduct themselves in ways that strengthen, rather than break, our society and all we have worked so hard to build,” Steenhuisen said.

He warned that Malema’s divisive language not only threatened social cohesion, but also damaged South Africa’s global reputation, citing concerns raised internationally, including by the United States and United Kingdom.

The DA vowed to explore “further action to enforce serious consequences” against Malema, adding that the judgment validated its long-standing opposition to the EFF’s entry into national government.

The Freedom Front Plus also welcomed the ruling, saying it had long pushed for decisive legal action against Malema’s rhetoric.

Party leader Corne Mulder said Malema had grown “untouchable” in his belief that context could excuse racially inflammatory remarks.

“The Freedom Front Plus hopes that the court’s finding sends a loud and clear message to everyone in South Africa: Hate speech and racial division are intolerable,” Mulder said.

AfriForum, which has campaigned vigorously against Malema’s rhetoric, described the ruling as confirmation of the EFF’s extremism.

Head of public relations, Ernst van Zyl, said Malema’s statements amounted to “incitement of violence against minorities”.

“It is outrageous that the president of South Africa continues to treat Malema with kid gloves despite international warnings,” Van Zyl said.

He noted that Malema had previously been denied a UK visa over similar concerns and that the US State Department had repeatedly flagged his rhetoric as extremist.

Judge Sher, while stressing that the Equality Act was not designed to suppress legitimate criticism of racism, said Malema’s remarks crossed the line into vigilantism.

“Calling for someone to be killed because they are a racist who has acted violently is an act of incitement of the most extreme form of harm possible,” he said.

Sher emphasised that South Africa’s democracy was built on reconciliation and lawful remedies, not retaliatory violence.

INSIDE POLITICS

The post EFF slams Equality Court ruling against Malema appeared first on Inside Politic.

Preliminary evidence indicates that Sport, Arts and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie breached the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, according to the SA Human Rights Commission.

It confirmed that it has written to McKenzie over resurfaced social media posts in which he allegedly used racial slurs, as well as more recent comments deemed xenophobic.

“Following assessment of the contents, the commission is of the view that utterances made by minister McKenzie are prima facie violations of the provisions of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act,” the SAHRC said.

McKenzie has until Wednesday to respond before it decides whether to take the matter to the Equality Court.

“The commission wishes to remind members of the public that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute,” it said.

The investigation follows several complaints from political parties and individuals after McKenzie, who leads the Patriotic Alliance, criticised podcasters for making disparaging remarks about coloured people.

That clash triggered scrutiny of his own history of online remarks, some dating back to 2011.

The posts, which resurfaced earlier in the month, allegedly included apartheid-era slurs directed at black South Africans and racially charged references to “Black Diamonds”.

The commission said his conduct, as a cabinet minister and MP, should “conform to ethical standards”.

McKenzie previously dismissed the backlash as a politically motivated campaign, but admitted to posting “insensitive, stupid and hurtful” remarks in the past.

The minister insisted that he could not be guilty of racism, citing his background, including his mother and being Black.

The SAHRC said it would determine its next steps after receiving McKenzie’s response.

INSIDE POLITICS

The post McKenzie may have breached equality law appeared first on Inside Politic.

Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema has been banned from vising the United Kingdom due to his support for the Palestinian group Hamas and his “kill the Boer” chants.

This was revealed in a letter to Malema by the UK’s Home Office in Pretoria, which provided reasons why he was denied a visa to speak at an event in that country earlier this year.

He could not travel at the time after he was informed in the 11^th hour that the application was still being processed and was encouraged to withdraw it as he would not make engagement on time. However, Malema insisted the application stood and wanted to know the real reasons for the delay.

In a letter dated 17 June 2025, the Home Office informed Malema that he has been banned from entering the UK and future visa applications were likely to be declined unless his behaviour changed. Further, each visa application would be considered on its merits.

Malema was informed that he had no right to appeal this decision and could not take it on review.

The office described Hamas as terrorist organisation and said Malema’s statements were a threat to public safety in that country.

“An application for entry clearance, permission to enter or permission to stay must be refused where the applicant’s presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good because of their conduct, character, associations, or other reasons (including convictions which do not fall within the criminality grounds).

“The non-conducive grounds for refusal or cancellation of entry clearance or permission considers that a person’s presence in the UK may be considered not conducive to the public good if the individual has been involved in unacceptable behaviour, including past or current extremist behaviour,” explained the letter.

The office described it as unacceptable behaviour for individual express views which incited, justified, or glorified terrorism to further their beliefs.

It said the current UK government definition of extremism considered that extremists could incite hatred, erode democratic institutions, social capital and cohesion.

It noted that due to advanced technology, Malema could express his views on social media, but it could not afford to grant him a visa lest he repeated his views on the UK soil.

Malema’s was quoted in the letter for his support of Hamas where defended the organisation’s attack on Israel.

“Additionally, I note that you have made statements calling for the slaughter of white people or hinted that it could be an acceptable option in the future. In 2016, you said that your political party was ‘not calling for the slaughter of white people, at least for now’,” it said.

Malema was further reminded of his case in the Equality Court in February 2022, where it said he told the presiding judge that he could not guarantee calling for the slaughter of white people in the future as he was not a “prophet”.

“Your presence in the UK has been assessed as non-conducive to the public good on the grounds of your conduct, character and associations, which makes it undesirable to grant you entry to the UK.

“I consider that the above statements, notably that your political party would arm a proscribed organisation and other statements you made justifying the actions of proscribed terrorist organisations, means your presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good,” it reads.

The EFF said it was unsurprised that Malema had been denied entry based on political reasons.

It said the letter confirmed that it was untrue that his application could not be processed due to administrative issues when he was set to visit at Cambridge University in May 2025, as initially claimed by the UK government.

“The UK Home Office went as far as extending an apology for what it knew was a political ban that was being hidden under challenges of administration. The UK has declared the commander in chief and president of the EFF an ‘extremist’ whose presence in the UK would not be conducive for the public good.

“This country which has a long history of imperialism and still has the blood of Africans dripping from its hands as its wealth was built on the back of African people, has suggested that all further applications by our president are likely to be denied unless he changes his posture on the issues which characterise him as a revolutionary,” it said in a statement.

The party said the Equality Court had in fact found that the singing of “kill the Boer, kill the farmer” could not be interpreted as a literal call for genocide, but was an expression of liberation heritage. The Constitutional Court further ratified this decision.

“There is no judge of the Equality Court of South Africa who ever posed a question to the President of the EFF challenging him to declare that he will never slaughter white people or make such an utterance, it was in fact the incompetent lawyer of the racist AfriForum Mark Oppenheimer who posed this question.”

It said the conflation of a lawyer and judge by a country as influential as the UK revealed deep-seated illiteracy by the UK and a “peddling of misinformation by a state against South Africa’s judiciary which must be condemned”.

The EFF stated categorically that neither Malema nor EFF would trade its revolutionary beliefs in exchange for a visa, and it would continue to support the oppressed of the world, especially the Palestinian people.

INSIDE POLITICS

The post Malema unlikely to be granted a UK visa unless he changes his tune appeared first on Inside Politic.