EFF to Appeal August 2025 Hate Speech Conviction of Julius Malema

When Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), was found guilty of hate speech last month, South Africa’s political simmer jumped to a boil.

The Equality Court handed down the verdict on 12 August 2025, citing remarks Malema made at a rally in Cape Town in March 2022. The party announced today that it will lodge an immediate appeal, signalling a fresh legal showdown that could reshape the nation’s approach to political speech.

Background: A Trail of Controversy

Malema’s run‑ins with the courts are nothing new. Back in 2011, the watchdog group AfriForum sued him and the African National Congress (ANC) over the song “Dubula iBhunu.” The South Gauteng High Court, sitting as the Equality Court, declared the song hate speech and issued an order barring its performance.

Both parties initially shrugged it off, claiming the order wasn’t enforceable. Later, Malema, speaking in his personal capacity, and ANC secretary‑general Gwede Mantashe entered settlement talks ordered by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). The resulting settlement, now an SCA order, effectively replaced the original injunction and forced both the ANC and Malema to stop singing “Dubula iBhunu” or anything similar.

That episode set a legal precedent: political leaders could be held accountable for incendiary language, even when it’s wrapped in cultural expression.

The 2022 Cape Town Rally and the 2025 Conviction

Fast‑forward to March 2022. Malema delivered a fiery address outside the historic Rivonia Junction venue in Cape Town, urging supporters to "protect our people" from what he described as "foreign exploitation." His phrasing, which included references to land ownership and race‑based economic redistribution, was later deemed to cross the line into hate speech under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA).

During the August 2025 hearing, the presiding judge, Judge Thandiwe Dlamini, noted that Malema’s words "incited hostility against a protected group and threatened social cohesion." The court fined the EFF R150,000 and scheduled sentencing for 23 January 2026.

Legal analyst Thandiwe Nkosi of the University of Cape Town told our desk, "This conviction is the third major hate‑speech ruling against Malema. It signals that the judiciary is willing to enforce the spirit of PEPUDA, even against powerful politicians."

EFF’s Appeal Strategy

The EFF has already filed the notice of appeal, arguing that the Equality Court misapplied the legal test for hate speech. In a statement released on 20 August, the party’s legal team, headed by Lindiwe Rabale, said the ruling "undermines freedom of political expression" and threatens the party’s ability to "articulate radical economic transformation."

Rabale’s brief points to two key pillars: first, that the speech was "politically charged, not racially hostile," and second, that the court ignored the contextual nuance of South Africa’s land reform debate. If the appeal succeeds, it could carve out a narrower definition of hate speech, offering politicians a wider berth.

Potential Impact on South African Politics

Should the appellate court uphold the conviction, Malema could face a six‑month prison term, a hefty fine, and possible disqualification from parliament. The EFF, which currently holds 44 seats in the National Assembly, would need to shuffle its leadership chart and could see a dip in voter confidence ahead of the 2029 general election.

Conversely, a successful appeal might embolden other opposition parties to test the limits of PEPUDA, potentially sparking a wave of litigation that could clog the courts and polarise public opinion.

International observers are watching closely. The African Union’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights released a brief note on 22 August, urging South Africa to "balance the protection of vulnerable groups with the fundamental right to political speech."

Key Facts at a Glance

• Conviction date: 12 August 2025
• Sentencing: 23 January 2026
• Rally location: Cape Town, March 2022
• Previous related case: 2011 “Dubula iBhunu” song ruling
• Appeal filed: 20 August 2025 by the Economic Freedom Fighters

What Comes Next?

The appellate hearing is slated for early March 2026 at the Supreme Court of Appeal. Both sides have submitted written arguments, and oral submissions are expected to run over two days.

In the meantime, the EFF is rallying its base, framing the appeal as a fight against “judicial overreach.” Meanwhile, civil‑society groups such as the South African Human Rights Commission have called for a "national dialogue" on how hate‑speech laws intersect with political activism.

Regardless of the outcome, the case underscores a broader tension in South Africa: how to protect historically marginalized communities without stifling the bold discourse needed for transformation.

Frequently Asked Questions

How could the conviction affect Julius Malema’s political career?

If the conviction is upheld, Malema faces a possible six‑month jail term and a R150,000 fine, which could trigger a parliamentary disqualification under the Constitution. Even a suspended sentence might damage his credibility among EFF supporters and moderate voters ahead of the 2029 elections.

What legal precedent does the 2011 ‘Dubula iBhunu’ case set?

The 2011 ruling was the first time a South African court declared a political song hate speech, establishing that cultural expressions can be subject to PEPUDA. It also showed that settlement agreements, once endorsed by the Supreme Court of Appeal, carry the same weight as initial judgments.

Why does the EFF claim the ruling infringes on free speech?

The party argues that the Equality Court applied a too‑broad definition of hate speech, ignoring the political context of land‑reform debates. Their legal team insists that criticism of economic policies should not be automatically equated with hostility toward a protected group.

What role does the Supreme Court of Appeal play in the upcoming hearing?

The SCA will review whether the Equality Court correctly interpreted PEPUDA. It will consider written briefs from both the EFF and the government, plus any precedent‑setting cases since the 2011 decision, before delivering a binding judgment that could overturn or uphold the conviction.

How might this case influence future hate‑speech legislation?

A definitive ruling could either tighten the legal definition of hate speech, limiting political rhetoric, or broaden protections for political expression. Lawmakers and civil‑society groups are already calling for a review of PEPUDA to clarify its reach in the political arena.