The price of racism: What are the legal consequences of using the k-word in South Africa?
Image: Itumeleng English/Independent Newspapers
As South Africans demand the removal of Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture Gayton McKenzie following his use of the K-word in a recent live video and previous social media posts, we delve into the legal implications surrounding this term.
In 2025, the use of the 'k-word' in South Africa continues to be a deeply offensive and unlawful act (rightfully so), carrying severe legal repercussions.
As we have seen in previous cases, South African courts and human rights bodies have affirmed that this slur is an embodiment of racial supremacy and hatred, irrespective of context or the race of the perpetrator.
What does the law say about the k-word?
South Africa's Constitution, adopted in 1996, enshrines fundamental rights, including the right to equality and dignity, and explicitly prohibits unfair discrimination, particularly on the basis of race.
Key legislative instruments, such as the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (PEPUDA) and the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA), are designed to tackle unfair discrimination, hate speech, and racial slurs in both public and workplace settings.
The "k-word" is widely recognised as inherently racist and unequivocally unlawful.
Its usage is viewed as a deliberate act of inflicting harm, impairing dignity, and causing humiliation to Black South Africans.
It's also worth noting that the Supreme Court of Appeal has defined "hate speech" as advocating hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
Cases and their consequences
Vicki Momberg
In a case that made headlines in South Africa and abroad, Vicki Momberg was found guilty of four counts of crimen injuria after racially abusing Black police officers following a smash-and-grab incident, during which she used the "k-word" no fewer than 48 times.
She became the first South African to receive a prison sentence for a racial utterance, sentenced to three years in prison, with one year suspended.
The Equality Court had previously ordered her to pay R100,000 in damages, perform 100 hours of community service, and attend sensitivity training, along with issuing an unconditional apology. However, Momberg reportedly failed to comply with these orders, leading to contempt of court proceedings.
Adam Catzavelos
In another widely publicised case, Adam Catzavelos faced public outrage and legal action after recording a video on a beach in Greece, celebrating the absence of Black people and using the "k-word".
He received a R50,000 fine or two years prison term, wholly suspended for five years, for his crimen injuria conviction.
In addition to that, he was fined R15,000 by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and ordered to publicly apologise and perform community service. His family business also dismissed him.
Peter-Paul Ngwenya
In a notable case concerning "Black-on-Black" use, Peter-Paul Ngwenya was charged for allegedly using the "k-word" in a text message to his former business partner, Fani Titi.
Despite arguments that the word has a different meaning when used by Black people among themselves, the magistrate confirmed that the "k-word" is always hate speech, regardless of the perpetrator's race, and is not part of Black South African culture.
Ngwenya was found guilty of crimen injuria and received a fine of R24,000 or twelve months in prison, wholly suspended for three years.
IOL
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
One more hurdle for the Calata group of families in R167m apartheid-era crime damages claim
A court application by President Cyril Ramaphosa stands in the way of a group of families of apartheid-era crime victims and survivors moving closer to getting justice. Image: Itumeleng English / Independent Newspapers The victims' families and survivors of apartheid-era gross human rights violations together with the Foundation for Human Rights (FHR), who notched up a significant victory in a side battle against former president Thabo Mbeki last week, will be back in court on Wednesday, August 6, to deal with another interjectory application that now stands in the way of their constitutional damages hearing. The Pretoria High Court ruled against Mbeki and his former justice minister Brigette Mabandla and the two politicians, who wanted to protect or clear their names in the proceedings, have accepted the outcome and are now waiting for the commission. In dismissing the Mbeki application the court found that 'it cannot be in issue that there was political interference in the prosecution of the TRC cases. Our Courts have found this to be so, and those findings stand and are binding. For this reason, the argument advanced for the Calata applicants that there would be no need for a specific finding against either Mr Mbeki or Ms Mabandla, is, to my mind, entirely sound. The issue has been decided.' However, before the core damages case can be heard there remains another delaying issue, an application brought by President Cyril Ramaphosa and the government opposing the R167 million damages claim by the 25 families and survivors of apartheid-era crimes filed in January. 'In addition, the government is requesting either a postponement or a stay of the main application, pending the outcome of a judicial commission of inquiry promulgated on 29 May 2025 (to look into why many of the apartheid-era crimes were not prosecuted in spite of recommendations by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission),' the foundation said in a statement. These cases include the murder of the Cradock Four — Matthew Goniwe, Fort Calata, Sparrow Mkonto, and Sicelo Mhlauli — members of the United Democratic Front and other community organisations fighting apartheid whose killings shocked the nation in 1985. Concern over commission's scope 'While the families, survivors, and the FHR welcomed the establishment of the commission of inquiry, they have raised serious concerns about its Terms of Reference. Specifically, they argue that the commission's mandate should be limited to examining the mechanics of political interference, how it occurred and who was implicated. They object to the inclusion of matters relating to the determination of rights violations and the potential award of constitutional damages,' the FHR said in the statement. Explaining what the main issue in court on Wednesday will be about, FHR executive director Zaid Kimmie told the Pretoria News that the 'sticking point' is that the government wanted to 'lump all of our other questions into this commission', in particular the question of damages. He said if they were to be made to wait until the conclusion of the commission to have their damages claim dealt with, it would possibly mean a delay of a couple of years. 'We all want the commission of inquiry to go ahead, but we would like to focus very narrowly on how that political interference happened and who, if anyone, was liable for the political interference,' said Kimmie. The foundation and the Calata applicants 'strongly oppose' the government's application as they also opposed the Mbeki-Mabandla application for its potential to delay matters and 'muddy the waters'. Kimmie said, if the government gets its way in court, 'everything will just be held in abeyance' for another 6-8 months until the commission completes its work, and then they would, unfortunately have to come back to court afterwards. 'I don't think that we are asking for an unreasonable amount of compensation. It's a hundred-and-sixty-seven million (rand). I believe the government will spend close to that amount just on the commission of inquiry,' he said. 'An ideal output for us would be for the state to accept its responsibility, to accept that the violations occurred and that the state was responsible for those violations, and compensate - pay the compensation so that these families can go ahead and seek truth and justice in their particular cases,' he said. 'Unfortunately, it looks like we have to fight every step of the way.' 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 'This is just a delay' 'From our perspective, this is just a delay in what we think … inevitably the state will have to account for its past — omissions? And all this is doing is making the families wait and causing them additional grief and trauma, rather than dealing with the matter immediately.' He said the government representatives initially seemed to understand and sympathise with the families and recognise the miscarriage of justice, but on the other hand they did not seem to want to proceed and either accede to the demands or negotiate in good faith with the families. He said this was 'very disappointing', but remained hopeful that things would be set right in court and that the damages issue would be settled, allowing the commission to focus on its work. 'The central issue for the families is, in many cases there are no longer any perpetrators to prosecute, all of the witnesses have died, and so, the possibility for justice has passed. And what they want now is an accounting for why that happened.' He said since 2017, a small number of such cases have been brought to prosecution by the National Prosecuting Authority. These include the COSAS 4, Caiphus Nyoka and Nokuthula Simelane cases. 'But so much more would've been possible to have been done in the early 2000s had the state taken those opportunities (that existed then). 'So, even 20 years later, it is still possible to prosecute, albeit a far smaller number of cases, but had the state done its job back then so many of these people would've been prosecuted and the families would have seen justice.' Asked about the potential of their damages claim opening up the floodgates for the government, Kimmie said the money would go into a trust fund and any family not currently part of the claim would be accommodated in it, meaning the government will have 'certainty that it has discharged its immediate liability' of making good the rights violations that occurred.
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Unfazed: South Africa's stance on US visa policies impacting Zimbabwe
US President Donald Trump continues to disrupt global diplomacy after a recent visa ban imposed on Zimbabwe. Image: Picture: Evan Vucci/AP The South African government seems unaffected by the recent US visa ban imposed by the embassy in Harare, Zimbabwe, despite President Donald Trump's ongoing disruptions to global diplomacy through tariff increases and immigration policies. The US has suspended all routine immigrant and non-immigrant visa services to Zimbabwe due to concerns over misuse and overstays, although other visa types remain unaffected. Although South Africa was exempt from new Trump visa restrictions on SADC countries, a new policy has been implemented for Malawi and Zambia. Citizens of these nations are now required to pay a bond of $5 000 (R88 656) to $15 000 (R265 967) to travel to the US. Additionally, the citizens are required to use one of three airports—Boston's Logan International, New York's JFK International, or Dulles International near Washington D.C.—for both arrival and departure. 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 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. Next Stay Close ✕ When asked whether South African citizens should be worried, Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) spokesperson Chrispin Phiri gave a brief response: "We do not provide commentary on other countries' visa regimes, and this is our general position, it's not specific to the US." A senior government official, however, downplayed the likelihood of South Africans being affected by the US visa restrictions. "Remember Trump is only in our case because of the International Court of Justice case against Israel and our involvement in BRICS. Nothing more and nothing less," the official said. "South Africans visiting the US are mostly professionals who either go for business or a holiday. We seldom have citizens wanting to immigrate to the should have nothing to worry about,' he said. The US embassy explained that the reasons for the restrictions was because the administration was working to prevent visa overstay and misuse as part of national security. "The Trump administration is protecting our nation and citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process," the embassy said. "We are always working to prevent visa overstay and misuse." In June, the US imposed travel bans on citizens from 12 countries, with seven of them located in Africa. Additionally, heightened restrictions were applied to seven other nations, three of which are African. The US has issued a demand to 36 countries, predominantly in Africa, to enhance their traveler vetting procedures. Failure to comply could result in a ban on their citizens visiting the US. International Relations analyst Rejoice Ngwenya said it was unfortunate that the US had an obsession with immigration issues. "All democratic countries must encourage international country movements. However it is incumbent upon citizens that they don't abuse regulations. But one thing to acknowledge in terms of implementation of immigration laws globally is not to interfere and dissuade inter country movements of students because knowledge sharing and education is a universal right,' Ngwenya said.
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Sanction Rosatom and send clear signal that occupation of nuclear plants will not be tolerated
The occupation by Russia of Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) is the first instance in history where a nuclear power plant has been militarily occupied and operated for over three years during active warfare. The deadline that US President Donald Trump had established for Russia to start a ceasefire, stop its aggression against Ukraine, or otherwise face the threat of sanctions was 8 August 2025. This was the sixth time that Trump had demanded that Vladimir Putin stop the war; however, Putin had previously declined such offers. The day passed uneventfully. During the 11 years of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, numerous peace initiatives have emerged, including the African Peace Mission. But analysts see little sign that Putin is prepared to abandon his intention to take control of Ukraine. In 2022, Russia declared in its Constitution that four Ukrainian regions were part of its territory, but failed to fully take over any of them militarily. Now Putin would have to amend the Russian constitution to halt the aggression at the current frontline — a highly risky political move that could bring about the end of his political power. Thus, he is demanding that Ukrainians leave their homes 'voluntarily' because the Russian army failed to take these territories by force. In July this year, Russia launched more than 6,000 drones and fired dozens of missiles targeting Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities, killing civilians far from the frontline. Just in the first half of this year, 6,754 civilians have been killed or injured, according to the UN. The war remains intense, and no one is safe in Ukraine. Nevertheless, hopes are high again for 15 August, when Trump is expected to meet with Putin in Alaska, the territory the US once bought from Russia. President Cyril Ramaphosa, who has previously spoken in support of Ukraine's territorial integrity, also spoke with both the Russian and Ukrainian presidents last week, raising expectations that a ceasefire may be possible. Sanctions The expectations are that Trump can speak from a position of strength and threaten sanctions. However, given Russia's negligible trade with the US, what sanctions could Trump introduce that would be meaningful? The Russian state budget used to receive about 50% of its revenue from oil and gas exports; this had already dropped to 30% in 2024. Further sanctions could seriously undermine the Kremlin's ability to fund the war, which is expensive to run. In 2025, a record 40% of Russia's state budget has been allocated to defence and security. Another 6%-10% of revenue comes from the Russian state agency Rosatom, which serves a dual role: developing civilian nuclear reactors and acting as a strategic arm of the Kremlin's military sector by producing parts for non-nuclear weapons and other defence technologies. Rosatom's subsidiaries supply components to Russia's military-industrial complex, including drone technologies. Some of these facilities, such as the drone production factory in Alabuga, have been accused by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime of recruiting African women aged 18 to 22 to drone production under allegedly false promises of a 'work-study programme'. Rosatom, whose regional office has operated in South Africa since 2012, plays a key role in the military occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe's largest nuclear power plant, seized by Russian military forces in March 2022 and turned into a geopolitical hostage. The occupation of the plant is the first instance in history where a nuclear power plant has been militarily occupied and has been operated for more than three years during active warfare. Rosatom plays a key role in this precedent. The violations of the International Atomic Energy Agency's seven nuclear safety pillars — the physical integrity of facilities, operability of safety systems, autonomy of staff decision-making, secure off-site power, uninterrupted logistics, effective radiation monitoring and reliable communication with regulators — have already been documented at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. The detailed analysis of these violations and what they mean for the African continent is presented in the Policy Brief on Nuclear Safety during Military Invasion, presented ahead of the African Union's Mid-Year Coordination Meeting in Accra in July 2024. The brief presents a comprehensive case study of nuclear vulnerability during wartime and calls for urgent action by African countries, including South Africa, to prevent similar situations on the continent. However, the challenges at the occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant go beyond the risk of physical damage to the facility. In May 2025, the International Labour Organization (ILO) reported that 13 Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant employees had been abducted, including three cases this year. The whereabouts of at least one detained worker remains unknown. The organisation also documented forced labour, coerced union membership and serious occupational safety risks for staff. Pressure to sign contracts More than 40 documented witness accounts by human rights organisations such as Truth Hounds suggest that since March 2022, Rosatom experts were fully aware of the pressure that the military personnel were putting on the nuclear operators to sign contracts with Rosatom. They were aware of interrogations, detentions, torture, psychological coercion and decisions to deny shift rotations. This is not a technical dispute. It is a systematic breach of international humanitarian law and nuclear safety norms, and of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. International mechanisms such as the UN have been powerless in the face of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant occupation. In July 2024, the UN passed a resolution — 'Safety and security of nuclear facilities of Ukraine, including the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant' — condemning the Russian occupation of the plant and calling for the immediate withdrawal of military forces to ensure global nuclear safety. Many African countries supported this resolution, recognising the threat to international peace posed by the militarisation of a civilian nuclear site. In addition, 13 African states — including Ghana, Kenya, and Zambia — endorsed the Peace Summit Communiqué in Switzerland, affirming Ukraine's sovereign control over its nuclear sites. However, these international documents lack binding power. Torture Instead, sanctions or a refusal to cooperate with organisations that support torture could reduce the funding available for the war. Such sanctions can be implemented by any country that aims to promote human rights and nuclear safety. South Africa co-chairs the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Ukraine is one of the few countries that gave up its nuclear weapons, despite holding the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal prior to 1994. That year, it voluntarily disarmed, joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty, accepted International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, and allowed international inspections. In return, the US, the UK and Russia committed to respecting and protecting Ukraine's borders and sovereignty. The silence and acceptance of military risks, and the violations of international labour practices, corporate responsibilities and human rights, show why governments that want to protect their population must act — not in reaction to a European war, but in defence of their own nuclear future. DM Dzvinka Kachur is with the Ukrainian Association of South Africa. Volodymyr Lakomov and Ilko Kucheriv are with the Democratic Initiatives Foundation.
