The civil rights organisation AfriForum’s hate speech case against Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), Mbuyiseni Ndlozi and the EFF was heard in the Southern Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg over the past two weeks. AfriForum lodged its complaint in October 2020 after supporters of the EFF sang “Kill the Boer, Kill the farmer” outside the Magistrate’s Court in Senekal, where the accused murderers of farm manager Brendin Horner were tried.
First and foremost, if the South African media was responsible in their coverage of the AfriForum vs EFF case, they would have shone a bright light on the disturbing and dangerous comments that had been made under oath by Julius Malema, the leader of the third largest political party in the country. Unfortunately, the media largely failed in this regard. Therefore, I am going to outline and document in detail the remarks that Malema made that we should take note of due to their dangerous and horrifying nature. I will present these in chronological order with timestamps for reference and context.
Day 1 of the cross-examination of Julius Malema
The first important revelation comes when Malema testifies (4:38:39) that, if every word of the songs that the EFF sing was meant literally, he and his supporters would have used real guns and shot these into the air rather than simply gesturing with their hands. Adv. Mark Oppenheimer, council for AfriForum, responds with an incisive question: “Would you stand on a stage with a real gun and shoot it in the air?” Malema refuses to answer, because he will be on trial in March 2022 for appearing to fire an assault rifle during an EFF rally in 2018.
Malema later refuses to condemn EFF supporters who sang “Kill the Boer” at Senekal in 2020 after he is shown video evidence of this (5:04:52). He justifies their hate speech by arguing that they “are angry”. Soon after, Oppenheimer points out (5:11:33) that Malema denied farm murders in his speech at Senekal, and that Malema chooses to talk about crime in general when he is confronted by the issue of farm attacks. On the other hand, Malema specifically talks about black oppression, as opposed to oppression in general.
Oppenheimer then presents two cases to Malema (5:22:45) in which anti-white racial hatred can be clearly connected to farm attacks and murders. Malema evades the question at first, but later at 5:28:28 denies that racial hatred can play a role in farm murders, even in the cases presented. Oppenheimer asks Malema whether white people can be victims in South Africa (5:50:56). Malema emphatically answers: “No, not at the current moment. No, no, no, no.”
Day 2 of the cross-examination of Julius Malema
On 8 February 2022, day 2 of the trial, EFF supporters blocked the gate to the court when AfriForum’s team left the building. After being forced by the SAPS to disperse, they started chanting “Kill the Boer, the farmer” directly at the AfriForum team as we passed – the very song which the court case was about. When Malema is shown the video of this incident (45:21), Oppenheimer asks whether he denounces his supporters for chanting it, Malema replies: “I don’t. I can sing it myself.”
Oppenheimer later presents (1:02:40) a farm murder case to Malema. A mother and daughter were tortured to death and the words “Kill the Boer” were written in blood on the wall in their house. Malema dismisses it by calling it mere “criminality” and then diverts by citing a case of a white farmer who killed a 13-year-old black child. Oppenheimer asks Malema if he considers that case to be a racist murder.
Malema responds that it was driven by a racist motive, because the farmer was in a position of power. Oppenheimer then asks whether those who tortured the white mother and daughter to death were in a position of power over the two women. Malema responds: “We do not know whether they are farmers. We do not know their social standing. We do not know the relationship to the means of production.”
Even though Malema made a plethora of disturbing, heinous and dangerous remarks under cross-examination, one in particular stands out in regards to its sinister nature. Referring to past comments of Malema where he said that “we are not calling for the slaughtering of white people ... at least for now”, Oppenheimer asks (1:11:15) whether he would pledge that he would never call for the slaughtering of white people. Malema says he would, easily. Oppenheimer then requests him to make such a pledge. Malema immediately refuses. When he is asked whether it could be him in future who makes that call, he testifies that he may call for the slaughtering of white people in future; he cannot rule out the possibility.
On day 1 of the cross-examination, Oppenheimer outlined how Malema frequently pretends to be moderate in front of the court and the media (5:31:06), as opposed to his radical rhetoric at rallies in front of his supporters. Malema responded: “I never said I’m someone moderate. I am very radical and very militant.” Now, on day 2 of his cross-examination, Malema again describes the EFF as a “very radical and militant” party (2:02:48). Oppenheimer asks whether he would endorse the use of violence to achieve the EFF’s revolutionary aims.
Malema responds: “When the time comes, and the conditions on the ground necessitate that arms must be taken, we will do so without hesitation.” Later, Oppenheimer asks Malema (2:14:40) if he is scared of killing. Malema emphatically responds: “I am not scared of killing. A revolutionary is a walking killing machine.”
Earlier in the cross-examination (1:16:24), Oppenheimer exposes Malema’s twisted view of history and his desire to hold people collectively accountable for crimes that they did not commit, based on their race. Oppenheimer asks Malema whether white people today are the same as those from 1652. Malema answers in the affirmative. Oppenheimer later asks Malema whether he still believes that “all white people are criminals and should be treated as such” (2:31:35), as he has stated in the past. Malema answers: “Yes”.
Oppenheimer then asks Malema (2:40:20) whether he would stop singing the song if he saw that there was a risk that singing “Kill the Boer / Kiss the Boer” would lead to people killing others–. Malema answers: “No”. Oppenheimer then tells Malema: (2:41:45) “The complainant has led evidence of someone whose wife was murdered in front of him, who is now paralyzed. He testified in this court.
He said, whenever he hears that song [“Kill the Boer”], it brings back the memory of that day. He broke into tears in this court. That is trauma. That is legitimate trauma. Does that evidence motivate you to stop singing that song?” Malema responds: “No.” Oppenheimer asks again: “So that individual case would not move you?” Malema responds: “No, I am not moved.” At 2:44:30 Oppenheimer asks Malema again about the legitimate pain and trauma of farm attack survivors. Malema responds: “I said I am not moved. I said I am not moved. Let me repeat five times. I’m not moved by that case you brought here. I am not moved! And if that will make me lose this case, let me lose it! I am not moved.”
AfriForum’s main objective with this trial is of course to win, but a secondary objective has already been accomplished beyond doubt: allowing Julius Malema to expose himself as a hateful extremist with violent, bloody aspirations. It is a shame that the media of this country largely failed in its duty of helping to expose his true self to the world. Instead, the country’s commentariat chose to make comments by Malema such as “I will be president one day, whether you like it or not” the headline story. I will soon write a follow-up piece, outlining the disappointing media reaction to this trial.
Ernst van Zyl is a campaigns officer for strategy and content at AfriForum. Ernst holds a master’s degree (cum laude) in Political Science from Stellenbosch University. He is co-presenter of the Podlitiek podcast, presents the Afrikaans podcast In alle Ernst, and has a channel for political commentary and interviews on YouTube. Ernst usually publishes contributions on Twitter and YouTube under his pseudonym Conscious Caracal.
