Viable News Team 
Image Source: Zuluson, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons
The Johannesburg High Court has upheld the Equality Court’s 2023 ruling that suspended Patriotic Alliance (PA) Deputy President Kenny Kunene’s repeated reference to Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema as a “cockroach” constitutes hate speech.
Kunene’s appeal against the earlier ruling was dismissed with costs, reinforcing the Equality Court’s position that such language in a political context can promote hatred and dehumanization especially given South Africa’s historical and legal frameworks around dignity and equality.
Background and Appeal
The case stems from a television interview where Kunene used the term “cockroach” four times in reference to Malema during a political debate. He argued that the comment was aimed at Malema as an individual rather than a group and therefore did not meet the threshold for hate speech as set out in Section 10 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (Equality Act).
However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating that the repeated and deliberate use of such a term in a public political setting constituted a clear intent to harm, which promotes hatred and strips the target of human dignity.
The court further highlighted the term’s historical use in genocidal rhetoric, particularly during the 1994 Rwandan genocide, where the word “cockroach” was used to dehumanise victims.
Court Orders and Consequences
The ruling orders Kunene to:
- Publicly apologise to Julius Malema within one month.
- Cease using the term “cockroach” or any similar language referring to Malema in the future.
This ruling comes amid Kunene’s suspension from the Patriotic Alliance, following internal party reviews related to his conduct and statements. The party has not commented further on the outcome of the court proceedings, citing ongoing internal disciplinary matters.
Freedom of Expression vs. Hate Speech
The judgment adds to South Africa’s evolving jurisprudence on balancing freedom of expression with the right to dignity and protection against hate speech. While robust political debate is a cornerstone of democracy, the courts have reiterated that such debates must not descend into dehumanisation or incite hatred.
Legal experts note this case could serve as a precedent in how political leaders engage with one another in public discourse, particularly in a polarised political environment where inflammatory language is often used for populist appeal.
About the Author
