Hate Speech ruling redefines the boundaries of political expression in South Africa as the High Court finds Kenny Kunene guilty for dehumanizing remarks against Julius Malema. This landmark judgment highlights the legal and ethical limits of free speech in democratic discourse.
The Johannesburg High Court delivers a landmark judgement in hate speech law
On August 5, 2025, the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg issued a pivotal ruling that captured the attention of legal scholars, political analysts, and the South African public alike. Kenny Kunene, a senior figure in the Patriotic Alliance and former Deputy President of the party, was found to have committed hate speech when he repeatedly referred to Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema as a “cockroach.” This ruling has sparked critical conversations about the line between political rhetoric and hate speech, and its implications could shape political communication in the country for years to come.
Background and Origin of the Dispute
The conflict stems from a televised interview aired in November 2021, during which Kunene made a series of inflammatory remarks targeting Malema. Among other insults, he referred to Malema as a “little frog,” a “criminal,” and most notably, a “cockroach.” While such language might once have been dismissed as mere political mudslinging, Malema saw these comments as crossing into hate speech and initiated legal proceedings.
In January 2023, the Equality Court ruled in Malema’s favor. The Court ordered Kunene to issue a formal apology and refrained him from repeating the offending statements. However, Kunene appealed the decision, asserting that his comments were not based on any prohibited ground defined under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA), but rather were politically charged expressions.
Legal Definitions and the Role of Political Belief
A central issue in the appeal was whether political belief qualifies as a protected ground under South African hate speech legislation. While PEPUDA clearly protects attributes such as race, gender, religion, and ethnicity, political belief is not explicitly listed. Nevertheless, the High Court determined that political conviction falls under the broader protections afforded to conscience and belief, thereby bringing it within the purview of the law.
The court emphasized that while robust political discourse is a hallmark of democracy, it cannot come at the cost of human dignity. When political speech adopts historically loaded language such as dehumanizing metaphors it risks inciting hatred and social division. The reference to Malema as a “cockroach” was deemed particularly egregious due to its historical use in genocidal propaganda, most notably during the Rwandan genocide, where similar terminology was used to justify mass killings.
Judicial Reasoning and Selective Sanctioning
The High Court’s ruling was not a blanket condemnation of all of Kunene’s remarks. Judges Stuart Wilson, Sandiswa Mfenyana, and Acting Judge SM Wentzel carefully parsed the language used, ultimately finding that only the term “cockroach” crossed the line into hate speech. The other descriptors, including “little frog” and “criminal,” while crude and unbecoming of political dialogue, were not found to meet the legal threshold for hate speech.
In their written judgment, the judges stated that calling someone a cockroach in a political context carries an inherent threat of dehumanization. The term’s legacy of legitimizing violence against marginalized or opposing groups contributes to an atmosphere of fear and hostility. Therefore, it could reasonably be construed as promoting hatred based on political belief a protected category under the Constitution and PEPUDA.
Legal Sanctions and Compliance Measures
Though the Equality Court initially referred the case to the National Prosecuting Authority for potential criminal charges, the High Court set aside that component of the ruling. Instead, the court imposed civil remedies. Kunene was ordered to issue a full, unconditional apology to Malema both in writing and orally, and was interdicted from ever referring to Malema as a “cockroach” again in any public or private forum.
The judgment reflects a broader legal philosophy that emphasizes restorative justice over punitive action. By compelling Kunene to acknowledge and correct his wrongdoing, the court aims to reinforce the values of dignity, respect, and responsible speech in the political sphere.
Implications for Political Speech and Public Discourse
The ruling sets a critical precedent for the limits of acceptable political expression in South Africa. Political leaders, commentators, and media figures now have clearer boundaries concerning what constitutes hate speech under South African law. Importantly, the court has affirmed that political ideology does not exempt one from the duty to uphold dignity and prevent incitement to harm.
This case may also serve as a reference point for future disputes involving similar language. It underlines that the historical and cultural context of words matters. Terms that might seem hyperbolic or metaphorical in isolation can have deeply harmful implications when placed in a broader social or historical frame.
The Broader Context of Hate Speech Regulation
Globally, democracies grapple with the delicate balance between safeguarding free expression and curbing hate speech. South Africa’s constitutional and legislative framework reflects an acute awareness of this tension, particularly in a country still reckoning with its apartheid legacy. The Kunene-Malema case illustrates how courts can act as mediators in this balance neither stifling political dissent nor allowing vitriol to masquerade as legitimate criticism.
Political leaders have an outsized influence on public attitudes and discourse. When they employ dehumanizing language, it can legitimize discrimination, deepen societal divisions, and erode democratic norms. The High Court’s decision makes it clear that such behavior is incompatible with South Africa’s constitutional commitment to equality and human dignity.
Lessons for Politicians and Public Figures
While freedom of speech remains a cornerstone of democratic life, it is not an unlimited right. This case should serve as a cautionary tale for all public figures who may be tempted to use inflammatory language in the name of political expediency. The consequences legal, reputational, and ethical can be significant.
Instead of resorting to insults, political figures should aim to elevate discourse and engage in substantive debate. The democratic process thrives not on mutual contempt but on the respectful exchange of ideas, even when opinions clash vehemently.
Conclusion: A Watershed Moment in Defining Hate Speech
The ruling against Kenny Kunene underscores a key moment in the development of South African jurisprudence on hate speech. It offers a reaffirmation that political rivalry, no matter how intense, cannot override the need for respectful and responsible communication. The verdict carves out a clear line in the sand: certain forms of expression, particularly those that dehumanize, will not be tolerated in a constitutional democracy.
For a deeper exploration of how legal systems around the world handle similar cases and to better understand the ethical frameworks that inform such rulings, a thoughtful analysis can be found in the discussion offered by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law.
