South Africa’s political landscape was rocked this week as the Equality Court in Western Cape Town found Julius Malema, the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), guilty of hate speech for comments made at a party rally in 2022—a verdict that has ignited fierce debate across the country and beyond. The ruling, delivered on August 28, 2025, has not only polarized public opinion but also underscored the ongoing tensions around race, political speech, and historical memory in post-apartheid South Africa.
At the heart of the controversy are remarks Malema made to his supporters during a rally in Cape Town. According to EWN and SABC News, Malema told the crowd, "You must never be scared to kill," and, "No white man is going to beat me up." The court found that these words, which stemmed from an incident involving EFF members and parents at Brackenfell High School in October 2020, demonstrated an intent to incite harm and violence. Judge Mark Sher, who presided over the case, stated that Malema’s speech was unacceptable, particularly for singling out white males and calling for their murder.
The case was originally filed by the South Africa Human Rights Commission, which argued that Malema’s statements crossed the line from robust political rhetoric into hate speech. Notably, the Equality Court deals with allegations of discrimination and can impose a range of penalties, from mandating public apologies to ordering compensation or even criminal prosecution. However, as of publication, no order regarding Malema’s punishment has yet been made.
The EFF, a prominent opposition party known for its radical economic and social positions, quickly condemned the ruling. In a statement posted to its official X (formerly Twitter) account, the party rejected the judgment outright, labeling it an attack on democratic space and an attempt to criminalize Black consciousness. The EFF argued that Malema’s words had been stripped of their political and historical context, reducing a revolutionary call to a crime. The party declared its intention to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Appeals, insisting that the fight was not just to protect its leader, but to defend "political freedom, historical truth, and the right of people who are oppressed to speak out boldly against their oppression."
"This judgment seriously bends the history, philosophy, and nature of political speech in democratic society," read the EFF’s statement, as reported by BBC. The party further asserted, "To criminalize this language is to criminalize Black consciousness and silence any radical challenge of White supremacy." The EFF maintained that South Africa’s history—marked by political, structural, and physical violence—must be acknowledged in interpreting political speech, especially when it comes from those who have historically been oppressed.
Malema’s controversial remarks were made in the aftermath of a tense altercation between EFF members and white parents outside Brackenfell High School, a flashpoint that has become symbolic of unresolved racial tensions in the country. During his speech, Malema reportedly questioned why EFF members had not "followed up" with a white man involved in the scuffle, suggesting they should have "caught him in a lonely corner and attended to him properly." The court found that such language, especially when directed at a particular racial group, could not be justified by political or historical grievances.
This is not the first time Malema has faced legal scrutiny for his public statements. As noted by BBC, he was previously convicted of hate speech for chanting "shoot the boer"—a phrase referencing white Afrikaner farmers—at rallies, though that verdict was later overturned. Malema’s rhetoric has consistently drawn condemnation from various quarters, both within South Africa and internationally. He has been denied a UK visa twice this year due to his public support for controversial causes, including the Palestinian militant group Hamas.
The international dimension of the case was amplified earlier this year when former US President Donald Trump played a video of Malema during a meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at the White House. In the video, Trump accused the South African government of sanctioning the murder of white farmers to seize their land—a claim widely debunked but nonetheless influential. In the wake of these allegations, the US government cut all financial aid to South Africa, citing what it called anti-white and anti-American policies. While the Malema case is rooted in domestic politics, its reverberations have clearly reached far beyond South Africa’s borders.
Within South Africa, the ruling has reignited debate over the boundaries of free speech, the responsibilities of political leaders, and the ongoing struggle to reconcile the country’s painful past with its democratic aspirations. Supporters of the court’s decision argue that incitement to violence—regardless of context or intent—cannot be tolerated in a society still healing from the wounds of apartheid. They point out that political leaders wield significant influence and must be held accountable for their words, especially when those words risk stoking division or violence.
On the other hand, many EFF supporters and left-leaning commentators see the judgment as an effort to stifle radical dissent and sanitize the political discourse. They argue that Malema’s rhetoric, while provocative, reflects the lived realities of many Black South Africans who continue to experience systemic inequality and exclusion. For them, the ruling signals a dangerous precedent—one that could be used to delegitimize voices demanding fundamental change.
Centrist and moderate voices in South Africa have called for a more nuanced approach. They acknowledge the need to protect free speech but caution against normalizing language that could inflame tensions or lead to real-world harm. Some legal experts have noted that equality courts are tasked with balancing these competing interests—a challenge that is especially acute in societies with deep historical divisions.
As the EFF prepares to appeal the ruling, the case is likely to remain a lightning rod for controversy. Whether the Supreme Court of Appeals will uphold the Equality Court’s decision or overturn it remains to be seen. For now, the episode serves as a vivid reminder of the complexities inherent in building a truly inclusive democracy—one where the scars of the past are acknowledged, but the future is not held hostage by them.
South Africa’s ongoing debate over Julius Malema’s words and their consequences shows just how fraught—and how vital—the conversation about free speech, race, and justice remains in the country today.
