Court orders Kenny Kunene to apologise to Julius Malema for hate speech
Image: Boxer Ngwenya/Independent Newspapers
Suspended deputy president of the Patriotic Alliance (PA), Kenny Kunene, is compelled to apologise to EFF leader Julius Malema after a Gauteng High Court ruling.
The court rejected Kunene's appeal against a previous Equality Court decision, which deemed his derogatory remarks—referring to Malema as a "cockroach," "little frog," and "criminal"—as hate speech under the Equality Act.
These utterances were made during an eNCA interview with Kunene.
The aggrieved Malema subsequently turned to the Equality Court.
The Equality Court at the time ordered Kunene to apologise for using these words to describe Malema and interdicted Kunene from doing so in the future.
On appeal, it was argued that Kunene's remarks were personal attacks on Malema rather than targeting any group of which Malema is a member.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad loading
Judge Stuart Wilson, who wrote the judgment on behalf of the full bench, in the opening of his appeal judgment, remarked that the central question in this appeal was whether one political leader who calls another political leader a 'cockroach' in the course of a televised discussion of the outcome of a local election commits an act of hate speech.
'We conclude that he does. This is because that conduct falls squarely within the textual definition of 'hate speech' outlined in section 10 of the Equality Act.'
The judge added that political speech in South Africa must be prevented from degenerating into an act of mutual dehumanisation.
Judge Wilson said the consequences of such dehumanisation are written largely across the pages of history.
'They reveal themselves in the pogroms and genocides that the use of the word 'cockroach' evokes... The Constitution and the Equality Act require us to enforce the modest limits on political discourse that are necessary to prevent it from doing so.
'It seems to me that Mr Kunene should be given the opportunity to bring himself back within the limits of lawful expression, and unequivocally to accept that there are some things that he is simply not permitted to utter because they undermine the political system in which he is himself an important participant,' Judge Wilson said.
He interdicted Kunene from describing Malema as a 'cockroach' in the future. Kunene must issue a written and oral apology within a month. Get your news on the go, click here to join the Cape Argus News WhatsApp channel.
Cape Argus
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
10 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
MK Party takes battle against Cachalia to the High Court
JOHANNESBURG - After being shown the door by the Constitutional Court last month, the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party is taking its battle against the newly-appointed police Minister Firoz Cachalia to the High Court. It has filed an urgent case in the North Gauteng Division seeking to have Cachalia's appointment declared unconstitutional and invalid. The party is also challenging President Cyril Ramaphosa's decision to establish a commission of inquiry into alleged corruption, collusion and political interference within the police service. ALSO READ: Cachalia says he's not been given a timeline for his stint as acting police minister Similar to the case it lodged when it was denied direct access to the Constitutional Court, the MK Party is now asking the High Court to review the decisions taken by Ramaphosa when he decided to put Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave. It followed claims by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi that Mchunu was allegedly colluding with a criminal network that has infiltrated the South African Police Service (SAPS). On 1 August 2025, Cachalia was sworn into office to act in Mchunu's place, a move the MK Party also believes is unconstitutional. The party is now asking the High Court to consider these decisions, to find them illegal, invalid and inconsistent with the Constitution, and to set them aside. It's asked the court to enrol the matter for its first hearing on 26 August 2025.
The Citizen
12 hours ago
- The Citizen
Zuma and MK party file urgent court bid to challenge Ramaphosa's Mchunu decision
The application by Zuma and the MK party comes after their recent loss in the Constitutional Court. Former president Jacob Zuma and the MK party have not given up the fight and have lodged an urgent application against President Cyril Ramaphosa in the High Court in Pretoria. The application by Zuma and the MK party comes after their recent loss in the Constitutional Court. What Zuma wants In the notice of motion, Zuma and his party want the high court to declare Ramaphosa's decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on special leave. They also want the appointment of Wits law Professor Feroz Cachalia as acting police minister and the establishment of a commission of inquiry to be declared invalid, null and void and unconstitutional and set aside. ConCourt ruling The ConCourt on 31 July 2025 ruled that the application does not engage the court's jurisdiction and refused direct access to the MK party and Zuma in its matter against Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa's lawyer Kate Hofmeyr argued that cases that can exclusively be decided by the Constitutional Court are very limited. 'This matter does not fall within this court's exclusive jurisdiction. Very few matters do, and this is not one of them. 'Any allegation that the power was exercised unlawfully falls under our constitutional scheme to the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) to consider first. Additionally, there is no pressing need for this court, on 10 days' notice, to decide the issues in this matter as a court of first and last instance,' Hofmeyr said. This basically means that Zuma and the MK party had to approach the high court first, which they have now done. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party case should've started in High Court, ConCourt hears [VIDEOS] The court ruling was handed down two hours after it hosted a special ceremonial sitting for retiring Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, whom Ramaphosa appointed to chair a commission to probe explosive allegations by KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) top cop Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanzi of criminal infiltration in the South African justice system. Constitutional matter In his founding affidavit to the high court, Zuma said he is bringing the application in his personal capacity, but because the application is urgent and in the 'interest of justice' he is also deposing the papers on behalf of the MK party. 'The twin purposes of this application are to re-assert the merits of the application which were left unadjudicated by the Constitutional Court on account of its findings on exclusive jurisdiction and direct access; and to raise new grounds of illegality and irrationality based on events which arose post the 30 July 2025 hearing in the Constitutional Court,' Zuma argues. Zuma said that the present application is indisputably a constitutional matter. Section 169(1)(a) of the Constitution provides that the High Court of South Africa may decide any constitutional matter except a matter that the Constitutional Court has agreed to hear by way of direct access or is assigned by legislation to another court of a status similar to the High Court. 'This is such a matter because the Constitutional Court, rightly or in my view wrongly, declined to grant direct access. That decision must be respected as a fact until or unless it is set aside,' Zuma said. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party accuse ConCourt of ignoring 'most serious' violations by Ramaphosa Urgency In his papers, Zuma argues that in his Constitutional Court application, Ramaphosa did not contest the urgency, exclusive jurisdiction, and/or direct access. 'The president sought and was allowed to opportunistically hide behind those technicalities to escape much-needed judicial accountability for the unjustifiable multiple breaches of the rule of law. There are no more hiding places. 'The serious and unprecedented revelations of alleged criminality made by Lieutenant-General Mkhwanazi, as another highly qualified whistleblower, in the tradition of former Intelligence Chief Arthur Fraser, can no longer be ignored or swept under the carpet at the request of the president,' Zuma argued. Zuma explains that the urgency of the application is 'clearly not self-created, and it can never be reasonably asserted that relief may be obtained in due course.' 'The impugned commission has already commenced and continues to operate at huge cost to the taxpayer. In the (unlikely) event of its delivering a final report in six months' time, the matter would still not have been heard in due course.' Cachalia Zuma also argues that Cachalia has since assumed office and will be 'making decisions which affect the security of the people of South Africa' while Mchunu 'who has been illegally placed on leave of absence by the president continues to earn a salary and enjoy other expensive privileges such as bodyguards, drivers, free ministerial accommodation, air travel domestic workers and the like.' 'It is trite that the matter involves very serious and unprecedented allegations of executive and judicial capture which, if true, constitute a threat to the very democracy prevailing in South Africa. 'It is impossible to imagine a greater catastrophe than that which would transpire if the allegations are true and the matter is not heard as one of the utmost urgency. In relation to the question of urgency, the merits must be regarded as true and proven,' Zuma argues. Senzo Mchunu Zuma also argues that there is 'no express legal provision which empowers Ramaphosa to place a minister on leave of absence. 'The respondents can therefore only rely on an implied power which is said to flow from the power to dismiss. 'It will be argued that the decision does not pass the reasonable necessity test because the power to dismiss in section 91(2) must not be confused with the power to dismiss an employee,' he said. 'Financial benefit' Zuma said the appointment of Cachalia is 'totally incoherent' and false explanations given by Ramaphosa in 'respect of this decision owe to the fact that it is rooted in improper motives and bad faith'. 'Its purpose if to grant undue financial benefits to Minister Mchunu at the expense of the taxpayer and to shield him from accountability and well-deserved dismissal or removal from the Cabinet. 'In explaining this appointment, the president has performed both somersaults and backflips in a series of incompatible volte face manoeuvres, all pointing to sheer irrationality,' Zuma argued. In his papers, Zuma argued that following the swearing in of the acting police minister, both Ramaphosa and Cachalia gave media interviews, with differing accounts of his official title and status. Questions to Ramaphosa Zuma's attorneys sent a letter to Ramaphosa on 4 August 2025, posing 15 unanswered questions regarding his actions and justifications. Zuma said Ramaphosa's response was 'inadequate'. 'Given the public importance of the issues and the imminence of the 1 August date for the assumption of office by Professor Cachalia, the matter cries out for direct access.' ALSO READ: Zuma demands Ramaphosa resign by Friday, or else… Madlanga Commission Zuma also argues that there is no legal provision which is capable of endowing the president with the power to confer upon the Madlanga Commission the powers which are reserved to the Judicial Service and/or Magistrates' Commissions, to investigate allegations of misconduct on the part of members of the judiciary. 'There are specific and well-accepted policy reasons why such powers are exclusively reserved for the bodies referred to above. These include the preservation of the independence, dignity and effectiveness of the judiciary.' The matter is expected to heard on 26 August 2025. ALSO READ: Madlanga inquiry: How much probe into Mkhwanazi's allegations will cost
IOL News
13 hours ago
- IOL News
Legitimacy crisis looms over National Dialogue as organisations withdraw
The withdrawal of Thabo Mbeki's foundation and others underscores significant concerns regarding transparency and preparation for the National Dialogue, raising vital questions about leadership and accountability in South Africa's pursuit of a cohesive national vision. Image: Armand Hough / Independent Newspapers Just two days before its scheduled start, the National Dialogue is facing a crisis of legitimacy, with several organisations withdrawing their participation due to concerns over transparency, funding, and the ANC's intentions. More organisations have withdrawn from the National Dialogue, citing concerns over its legitimacy, transparency, and effectiveness. The uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MK Party) has questioned the financing of the event, while the Freedom Front Plus, ActionSA, Solidarity, and Afrikaner Leierskapsnetwerk (Afrikaner Leadership Network, ALN) have all announced their decision not to participate. This follows the withdrawal less than a week ago of the Mbeki Foundation and other prominent legacy foundations, including the Steve Biko Foundation, Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation, and FW de Klerk Foundation, from the ambitious event. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading The foundations stated that a key factor in the decision was the uncertainty regarding the R700 million allegedly allocated for the National Dialogue. They also cited concerns over the rushed timeline, inadequate preparation, and shift towards government control as reasons for their withdrawal. The MK Party has questioned who will finance the dialogue and slammed it as an "expensive sideshow" designed to bypass Parliament and give the Presidency unchecked influence over policy-making. 'The Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME), whose duty is to guard against waste and ensure that government spending addresses urgent national priorities, has disgracefully allowed public resources to be poured into a politically engineered 'Convention' that has no legal mandate, no parliamentary approval, and no place in the constitutional order. 'Deputy President Paul Mashatile and his Inter-Ministerial Committee have no authority to set up alternative governance platforms with public funds. This is not citizen-led, it is ANC-led, and the DPME's silence shows that it has been reduced to a rubber stamp for the Presidency's pet projects,' the MK Party said through its spokesperson, Nhlamulo Ndlela. The party further highlighted the neglect of essential services in various provinces while funds are being poured into the National Dialogue. Some of the issues cited include rural clinics closed due to medicine shortages and unpaid staff, communities in eThekwini going weeks without clean water, schools without desks forcing children to sit on the floor, and ambulance response times stretching beyond four hours, among other concerns. The VF Plus believes the ANC-led government is not ready for genuine dialogue and has refused to abandon its failed economic and foreign policies. "A political party with such a mindset and approach cannot act as a credible facilitator for the Presidency or a participant in a national dialogue," the party said. ActionSA said that while they would not fully participate, they would deploy two senior Members of Parliament as observers to monitor and exercise oversight over the convention. "We will not participate in or lend legitimacy to a process under these circumstances," ActionSA said. Solidarity Movement and AfriForum said the ANC had hijacked the National Dialogue and would not participate. "The ANC wants to hijack the intended National Dialogue to try to win back lost support, rather than to find answers to the crisis," said Flip Buys, chairperson of the Solidarity Movement. Afrikaner Leadership Network (ALN) expressed concerns about the lack of transparency and openness in the planned process and will not participate in the National Convention. However, the Presidency has confirmed that the inaugural National Convention of the National Dialogue will proceed on August 15-16, saying it would be formally launching a constitutionally mandated process aimed at developing a national compact for transformation, despite all concerns. The ANC has noted the decision by several National Legacy Foundations and organisations to withdraw from the Preparatory Task Team of the National Dialogue and urged the government to urgently address the concerns raised. Without outright saying it was in support of the event, the party said it believed the National Dialogue must be rooted in inclusive participation, guided by the spirit of the Constitution and liberation values. 'The ANC reaffirms that the process is about building trust, healing social divisions, and forging national unity through broad-based societal engagement.'
