Africa-Press – South-Africa. SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has defended its decision to let EFF leader Julius Malema off the hook for hate speech in 2019.
This after Malema had, in 2016, said, “we are not calling for the slaughtering of white people, at least for now”, while addressing supporters.
On Tuesday, the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg reserved judgment, with Deputy Judge President Roland Sutherland, who presided in the case, indicating he would send the outcome via email.
Advocate Kathleen Hardy, who represented the SAHRC, said particular attention was given to the complaint against Malema.
According to Hardy, contrary to steps usually taken to allow provincial offices to handle matters where the incident occurred, the SAHRC CEO, in this case, was personally involved.
“The commission took this so seriously they instructed two senior staff members to look into this matter, do research, and advise them.
“The two, who were roped in, are senior specialists, one a senior researcher in the area of equality to look at this and advise the commission.
“That opinion is comprehensive; they listed what they have found necessary to interrogate and considered coming to their conclusion.
“They took the complaint seriously, and they put resources into this because they recognised the importance of the matter; they didn’t have to do that,” said Hardy.
She added the CEO of the commission at the time instructed the senior researcher for equality to prepare an opinion regarding these matters.
“Given that the senior researcher is only admitted to the bar of the state of New York, the opinion is supported by a senior legal officer,” said Hardy.
She added Malema had also qualified his utterances that processes to be taken to take back the land would be done through constitutional procedures.
This after legal teams representing the FW de Klerk Foundation and AfriForum submitted that part of the reason why the court should review the decision by the SAHRC was, as they argued, because the commission merely conducted a desktop legal investigation at best.
Advocates Greta Engelbrecht and Chris Woodrow, who represented the FW de Klerk Foundation and AfriForum, respectively, argued at worst, the SAHRC did not even investigate the case.
Engelbrecht stressed the point the SAHRC failed to consider Malema’s status and the power his words wielded over his supporters.
She said consideration should have been given to what responsibility needed to be placed on those who are thought leaders, particularly how their utterances could be acted upon by virtue of their esteem.
“He directed his anger at white people who, in his estimation, have been too comfortable for too long; he described white peoples as criminals and said the land will be taken from them using whatever means possible,” added Engelbrecht.
She said the EFF leader, through his utterances, was “pointing the proverbial the finger at white people, saying and if you don’t behave, there will be consequences”.
Hardy added it could not be said the commission did not apply its mind to Malema’s standing, saying maybe the two organisations merely wanted a particular phrasing to be used in the report.
“Consideration was given to Malema’s influence and the entire speech, not just sections of it as suggested by my esteemed colleagues [Engelbrecht and Woodrow],” she said.
Malema’s legal representative, Kameel Premhid, argued the High Court had no jurisdiction to review the case and the applicant had to approach the Equality Court.
“The SA Human Rights Commission may have committed a litany of errors, but because its outcome does not close the door for the applicants to head to the Equality Court, this court, therefore, has no justiciability to review that finding,” said Premhid.
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
