The EFF has rejected the Equality Court’s ruling, which found that Julius Malema’s statements were hate speech and incited violence.

The party said it had instructed its lawyers to challenge the decision. 

”The EFF has already instructed our lawyers to begin the process of challenging this ruling at the Supreme Court of Appeals.”

In a statement released following the ruling on Wednesday, the EFF described the judgment as “a grave distortion of history, philosophy, and the nature of political speech in a democratic society.”

The Equality Court upheld a complaint by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), based on Malema’s comments at the party’s Western Cape 3rd Provincial People’s Assembly on 16 October 2022.

Malema had said, among other things: “You must never be scared to kill. A revolution demands that at some point there must be killing,” and “Racism is violence and violence can only be ended by violence.”

The court ruled that these remarks “could reasonably be construed as demonstrating a clear intention to incite harm,” in violation of Section 10 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (Equality Act).

While the court acknowledged the importance of freedom of expression , calling it an “indispensable facilitator of democracy,” it held that the right is not absolute and does not protect speech that advocates hatred or incites violence.

The EFF, however, said the court’s interpretation strips Malema’s speech of its political and ideological context, reducing what it calls revolutionary rhetoric to a criminal act.

EFF spokesperson Sinawo Tambo said the judgment assumes that the public is incapable of understanding political metaphor or revolutionary language.

“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,” said Tambo.

The party argues that the speech must be understood in light of the Brackenfell High School incident in 2020, where black protesters were assaulted during a demonstration against racial exclusion.

According to the EFF, Malema’s comments were a response to that incident and to the broader historical reality of racial violence, not a literal call to attack anyone.

“The Court ignored three critical realities,” said Tambo.

“Firstly, that Malema’s remarks followed the Brackenfell incident where white racists assaulted black protesters. Secondly, the historical context that South Africa was built on structural and physical violence against black people. Thirdly, the EFF is a Marxist-Leninist and Fanonian movement, therefore our analysis of society recognises class and racial contradictions.”

The party maintains that when Malema spoke of a “war between white supremacy and black consciousness,” he was referring to an irreconcilable ideological conflict, not a physical one.

Tambo insisted that the “war” in question is “a war of ideas and systems, not an instruction to kill white people.”

The EFF further warned that the judgment sets a dangerous precedent by criminalising black radical political thought. It accused the court of aligning itself with efforts to silence revolutionary discourse and sanitise the language of liberation to avoid offending those who continue to benefit from historical injustices.

The party argued 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.

”The real violence is the daily reality of landlessness, unemployment, and racism that black people endure,” said Thambo. 

Referencing Section 16 of the Constitution, which protects freedom of expression, including political expression, the EFF criticised the court for ignoring established precedent.

It pointed specifically to a prior ruling involving Malema and the singing of “Kill the Boer”, in which the court recognised the heightened protection afforded to political speech.

“This judgment ignores that principle and instead aligns itself with an agenda that seeks to delegitimise revolutionary discourse,” Tambo said.

Calling the ruling “an attack on the democratic space and the right to articulate revolutionary politics,” the EFF reiterated its commitment to appeal.

“We do so not only in defence of our Commander-in-Chief but in defence of political freedom, historical truth, and the right of oppressed people to speak boldly against their oppression,” said Tambo

hope.ntanzi@iol.co.za

Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.

IOL Politics

Source link