South Africa: Julius Malema and the future of freedom of speech

The controversial president of the ANC Youth League Julius Malema has been found guilty of hate speech by a South African judge because of comments he made about a woman who accused President Jacob Zuma for rape. The comments Malema made were: “Those who had a nice time will wait until the sun comes out, request breakfast and ask for taxi money. In the morning, that lady requested breakfast and taxi money.”

Malema is known for constantly making controversial statements. Last week our author Muhammad Karim wrote a post about Malema singing an old anti-Apartheid song Kill the Boer.

South African bloggers and legal experts have reacted quickly to the judgement. Opinions about the judgement and the future of freedom of speech in South Africa are deeply divided.

Leading constitutional law expert and Claude Leon Foundation Chair in Constitutional Governance at the University of Cape Town Professor Pierre de Vos has questioned the guilt verdict. He argues that the judgement is wrong:

The judgment of magistrate CJ Collis in which she found Julius Malema guilty of hate speech and harassment will probably be cheered on by many South Africans who are sick and tired of the hateful and idiotic utterances of the leader of the ANC Youth League. “Finally old Julius got his come-uppance,” many of us might say. “Finally our legal system has shown Julius a big fat middle finger!”

The problem is, from a legal perspective it is difficult not to conclude that the judgment is wrong. In my opinion it may very well be overturned on appeal.

Robert Brand agrees:

You make a persuasive argument that the magistrate erred and that an appeal may succeed. However, I would go further and argue that an appeal against the hate speech provisions in the Equality Act on Constitutional grounds would also succeed. The act goes much further in defining hate speech than the constitution, and in effect creates a faultless crime: intention to incite harm is not required, just that the words may be construed to have such an intention. It also widens the scope of hate speech to comments that “hurt” or propagate hatred, whereas the constituton refers to “harm” only.

Pierre observes that many South Africans fail to understand hate speech as defined by the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA):

Hate speech is defined in the Act as words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, (in other words, words based on race, sex, gender or sexual orientation, say) against any person that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful; be harmful or to incite harm; or promote or propagate hatred. Showing the middle finger to the President could never be construed as words based on any of the prohibited grounds such as race, sex, gender and sexual orientation, so it could never be construed as hate speech.

Many people fail to understand that hate speech as defined in PEPUDA requires more than making hurtful or harmful statements about someone. If I say the President is a sex obsessed idiot, or that Helen Zille is a racist madam, it might be rude and it might even be defamatory but it would not constitute hate speech as I would not be saying anything based on Zuma or Zille’s race, sex or sexual orientation.

One of his readers, Dumisani Mkhize, disagrees with him because “Malema’s words and message at that rally are clearly meant to paint this woman as a bad person who deserves what she got and more”:


Without taking anything away from your legal argument, I wish to present a view from a non legal perspective.

I believe Malema’s words to constitute hate speech. Here’s why:

This woman, called Khwezi, was vilified by Zuma supporters during the rape trial. Some women even called for her blood. This woman is now living in exile for fear of her life.

Malema’s words and message at that rally are clearly meant to paint this woman as a bad person who deserves what she got and more. These words add to the suffering and danger that Khwezi is subjected to on a daily basis and they make it even more dangerous for her to come back to the land she considers her home.

Can you imagine what would have happened to her, had Khwezi shown her face at that particular rally at that time?

I don’t have to remind you about what happened to that American exchange student who showed her face at the wrong place and the wrong time. Amy Biehl was killed by a group of people who were not inherently evil or bad, but they happened to be singing and chanting inciting “one settler, one bullet” slogans at that very moment.

Malema is an influential leader to his impressionable followers and a strong message needs to be sent to curb further and unnecessary acts of violence that could result from his careless rant.

If overturned on appeal, it would be unfortunate and would further put vulnerable women in general and Khwezi in particular in further jeopardy.

Robert Brand writes a post in defence of Julius Malema's right to free speech. He makes it clear that he is not defending Malema but only hist right to freedom of expression:

I believe in freedom of expression. Our Constitution protects the right to freedom of expression. That is why I cannot welcome the Equality Court’s ruling that Malema was guilty of hate speech when he commented on the young woman who had accused President Jacob Zuma of rape.

Please understand that I am not defending Malema. I am defending his right to freedom of expression, which is also mine and yours and which means nothing if it does not include the right to say things that offend other people.

Robert asks, “But do his words constitute hate speech?”:

Hate speech is defined in the Constitution as “advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion and that constitutes incitement to cause harm” (my italics). Malema’s words were undoubteldy hurtful to many people. They may, at a stretch, be construed as “advocacy of hatred” based on gender. But did they constitute incitement to cause harm? I think not. And so, offensive though the words were to our sensibilities, they should be protected by the the Bill of Rights.

The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, under which Malema was charged and convicted, has, however, complicated issues by adopting a far wider definition of hate speech than the Constitution. The Equality Act (for short) defines hate speech as words ”that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful, cause harm or promote hatred on the basis of race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language or birth”.

A reader at Robert's blog, Evan argues that hate speech should be narrowly defined:

You’re absolutely correct. Hate speech should be extremely narrowly defined and the law should be applied with absolute vigilance and circumspection.

Malema is a useless tool who should have his nuts kicked five times day, but this hate speech thing is going to do far more harm in general than any good it might do in this particular case.

Anothe reader asks the following questions:

“The ANC defended youth leader Julius Malema on Thursday for singing, “shoot the boers, they are rapists”, saying the lyrics of the song had been quoted out of context.”

Does this slogan not constitute hate speech?
Is this permissible within a “freedom of speech” remit?
Who’s responsibility is it to prosecute someone who breaks the law in a case like this?
Will the Government do it, or does a private citizen have to lay a charge?

Robert responds:

That may be hate speech in terms of the Equality Act. A private citizen can lay a charge. The government – more specifically the National Prosecuting Authority – would then prosecute.

After the verdit, Sino Majangaza from DispatchOnline went out with a video camera asking South Africans what you thought of Julius Malema. Here is a video of what they had to say.

Classic Malema blog has an interview Julius Malema had with Times LIVE after the judgement. And Zapiro Malema goodness! Jonathan Shapiro is the leading South African cartoonist, popularly known as Zapiro.


  • […] Macha has a roundup of responses from a variety of points of view that makes me think this ruling may well be reversed on […]

  • […] appear to privilege free speech quite so zealously as the U.S. system—the decision seems questionable, since the country’s hate speech law apparently requires that one intentionally seek to […]

  • Could something good game out of this “hate speech”? What is the difference between “free of speech” and hate speech? All my adult life I help the poor in my community, South Africa, specially our black people. No I’m to scared to reach out to blacks. I do not know when my life is in danger. What good did Julius Malema do in our country? Nothing! He wasn’t in the struggle. I believe that this hate and racism will bring a lot of problems to us if it doesn’t handle in the open the right way. Mr. Zuma is Ok. But if he really care for our whole nation, he will and can stop this. Is he scared as well? Can he think for himself or might other’s do it for him. Mr. Mbeki would not let this happen. The overall South Africans seeks piece but all this hate can bring every thing down that is build in this 16 years in SA. We are really worried about this whole situation. Please Mr. Zuma does the right thing and build this country. You knew not all our white people were in with apartheid and do not deserve this handling.

  • Hendrik Moller

    Dear Sir/Madam

    I would like to strongly condemn in the strongest possible terms the “Kill a farmer kill the Boer” song. This is tantamount to insult, hate speech, disregard for human life, incitement, racism, support for violence, conspiracy to commit and backward and simply dumb.

    They, the ANC, now go against their own constitution in order to ratify this thug and madman called Julius Sello Malema. The ANC claims the song as being part of the Struggle as you know. The Struggle, man, is over by 16 years, its time to move on. Cultures must also change with the times.

    As an Afrikaner I do not delve into the past when my ancestors got locked in colonial concentration camps and murdered by the British. I don’t know of any Afrikaner songs in antiquity that went “Kill be redneck kill the settler” or something to that effect. And was there mass renaming of English street and town names by the Nats, pre 94, to eradicate vestiges of the English history in this land.

    So if the “Kill a farmer kill the Boer” song is part of our history then by the same token the K-word is also part of our history and then it also OK to be used and must also be respected? Am I correct here or am I barking up the proverbial tree.

    Or is the ANC selective of the land’s history. Julius Malema is out of control and have a chip, weighing several tons, on his shoulder, indeed?

    In retrospect I hate NO good black person in the land, just the EVIL ones like I hate adolf hitler and his gang of criminals (notice the lowercase as a sign of disrespect) propped up by New World Order Elite Billionaires, one of the biggest scumbags in the last 5000 years.

    • Gawie

      I cannot agree with you more, Malema says he has been singing the hate song since he was 9 years old, does this entitle the white Afrikaner who was raised using the hated K word to say that it is his culture and the way he was raised. some of the Afrikaners were raised that biblically the black man is not an accepted race, does this give him the right to condemn and publically denounce the right of a fellow human being, I seriously don’t think so but then my name is not Julius Malema so I am not allowed to say things like that. who gives anyone the right to openly hate and say what they want to? I guarantee you let a White afrikaner stand up and use the K word in public and you will have such a bloody outcry from the whole world but again they are not JULIUS, Julius is a good man ,julius is a just man julius can do no wrong some idiots even think he is in it for the cause, WAKE UP

  • […] be killed and the media are going to the boil, rejecting the fault on publicity that followed Julius Malema barred from singing the old ANC revolutionary song ‘Ayesaba Amagwala‘ (meaning […]

  • Cindy

    Julius Malema calling a BBC reporter at bastard…. talk about the pot calling the kettle black

  • Dave

    History repeats itself. We keep closing our eyes to the signs around us(word of mouth, newspapers & national news).The truth is that NO post colonial country has ever developed, but has regressed into decay.
    Please read this article, although dated 2007 it stands even more pertinent to S.A’s current situation at present.

  • certain conduct and action is disgraceful,unfounded and unjustified….no excuses at all no matter the colour of skin of the proponent!

  • […] Malema, the President of the ANC Youth League (ANCYL) is no stranger to controversy. In fact, many would argue it is what he thrives on. He is regarded by some as the voice of […]

  • […] South Africa: Julius Malema and the future of freedom of speech Facebook is blocked in Pakistan as it Indulges in a Controversial Campaign Macedonia: Online Rebellion Against “Skopje 2014″ Plan Myanmar's new flag and new name […]

Join the conversation

Authors, please log in »


  • All comments are reviewed by a moderator. Do not submit your comment more than once or it may be identified as spam.
  • Please treat others with respect. Comments containing hate speech, obscenity, and personal attacks will not be approved.