Grant Horlin Attorneys

06/01/2026

02/01/2026

Thank you to C2 Digital Print and Byron Hendricks for the excellent service in producing high quality printed apparel!

Bring on 2026!!

12/11/2025

World leaders must act now to tackle inequality - President Cyril Ramaphosa

Noble statements from our President, but is there any evidence that our local policies are helping to alleviate inequality in our own country?

https://www.thepresidency.gov.za/latest-newsletter

21/05/2025

SOUTH AFRICA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA –
a meeting of two presidents

On Wednesday, 21 May 2025, the Republic of South Africa’s President, Cyril Ramaphosa, is scheduled to meet the President of the United States of America (“USA”), Donald Trump, to discuss various issues regarding the countries’ relationship with each other.
I am sure that one of the primary matters up for discussion is the Executive Order which the US President signed on 7 February 2025 (“EO”), which was a reaction to South Africa’s assent of the Expropriation Act No. 13 of 2024, which discussion especially pertinent given the USA recently, on 13 May 2025, welcomed their first “Afikaner refugees” from South Africa in pursuance of the aforementioned Executive Order.

How did we get to this point?

The Executive Order is short and divided into five sections, and I will cover the three main sections below.

Section 1: Purpose
The USA states that it cannot continue supporting South Africa (“SA”) and cites two aspects for this decision, namely – 1) human rights violations in SA, and
2) SA posing national security threats to the USA.

1) Human Rights Violations
The Executive Order states that “in shocking disregard to its citizens’ rights, South Africa recently enacted the Expropriation Act No. 13 of 2024 (“Expropriation Act”) which enables the South African government to seize ethnic minority Afrikaners’ agricultural property without compensation. It also references countless government policies designed to dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education, and business and hateful rhetoric and government actions fuelling disproportionate violence against racially disfavoured land owners.
• The assent of the Expropriation Act was necessary in order to repeal an Expropriation Act that had been in existence since 1975 (which also provided for expropriation without compensation, but which referred to outdated Apartheid Era Acts).
• Contrary to the Executive Order, the Expropriation Act does not identify agricultural property as a target for expropriation.
• Contrary to the Executive Order, the Expropriation Act does not identify Afrikaners as targets for expropriation of property.
• Contrary to the Executive Order, various legislation has been enacted to promote equal opportunity in employment, education and business, in terms of our Constitution. Our Constitution provides for discrimination in order to remedy past wrongs, but discrimination is allowed only in certain circumstances. I submit that it is therefore incorrect for the SA government to aver that there is no discrimination, but they should rather admit to the discrimination and stand by it.
• There is no evidence of the South African government fuelling disproportionate violence against anybody, while at the same time, the EO refers to racially disfavoured land owners which is undefined, e.g. does a black person living in a township, initially set up by the Apartheid policies, fall within the definition of a racially disfavoured land owner?

2) National Security Threats
The Executive Order states that SA has taken aggressive positions towards the USA and its allies, including accusing Israel, not Hamas, of genocide in the International Court of Justice, and reinvigorating its relations with Iran to develop commercial, military and nuclear arrangements.
• It is not clear how SA bringing Israel before the International Court of Justice, primarily to obtain an urgent ceasefire, is an act of aggression towards the USA.
• South Africa has openly indicated the possibility of co-operating with Iran, although the extent of the co-operation is unclear. My knowledge of this aspect is limited.
I submit that the two purposes do not align, and that it may have been more appropriate for the USA to issue two separate Executive Orders.

Section 2: Policy
The Executive Orders states that as long as SA continues what the USA views as unjust and immoral practices that harm its nation, the USA will:
• not provide aid or assistance to SA
• promote resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored raced-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation.
I am interested in the USA’s assessment of an Afrikaner – how do they determine who is an Afrikaner? It is widely understood that SA is a nation made up a combination of various races and backgrounds. Will somebody with Afrikaner heritage, but who was unable to identify as same due to Apartheid laws, be able to identify as one now in order to access the USA refugee policies?
There is further no indication how South Africa’s assent of the Expropriation Act harms the USA nation.

Section 4: Refugee Resettlement and Other Humanitarian Considerations
The Executive Order directs that appropriate steps should be taken to prioritise humanitarian relief, including admission and resettlement for Afrikaners in SA who are victims or unjust racial discrimination.
• Unjust, racial discrimination is a matter that is adjudicated by our courts.
• How does the USA determine what is unjust without due process?

Hopefully SA, in dealing with the USA, sticks to the facts, avoids name-calling and invoking the names of former struggle stalwarts, and affirms its commitment to the SA Constitution, and thereby brings clarity to the situation and builds bridges for future co-operation.

Always refer to the source:
Here is a link to the Executive Order for your perusal:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-02-12/pdf/2025-02630.pdf

Here is a link to my commentary on the Expropriation Act No. 13 of 2024, together with its further resources:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/grant-horlin-attorneys_expropriation-act-whats-compensation-got-ugcPost-7321653586839363584-8MK5?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAADczSMMBwHkQb_Gk4CKFGiZakdFR4WPFTJo

A look at the Expropriation Act, its place in our society and what lead us to this point.

15/05/2025

According to South Africa's crime reports, farm murders do occur.

Here are the numbers supporting that statement.

04/05/2025

Commentary on: Expropriation Act – What’s Compensation Got To Do With It?

On 24 January 2025, the President of South Africa assented to the Expropriation Act No. 13 of 2024.

This caused some dissent within the Government of National Unity, most notably the Democratic Alliance (DA). The Expropriation Act made news globally and on
7 February 2025 the President of the United States of America signed an executive order specifically referencing this newly enacted Act.

Below, I would like to break down the salient aspects of the Expropriation Act, its place in our society and what lead us to this point. At the end you should be able to come to your own conclusion about whether the opposition to the Act has merit.

The Expropriation Act provides for the following:

1) Expropriation of land and other property for public and certain other purposes.
a. Expropriation was largely envisaged to assist the state with building public service utilities like roads, railways and universities

2) The Minister is empowered, subject to the Act and an obligation to pay compensation, to expropriate any property for public purposes, which expropriation may also be temporary (for a maximum of 12 months).

3) The Minister may authorise any person to attend at the property to inspect and assess the potentially expropriated property
a. No consent of the owner/occupier is required provided 24-hours’ notice is given of the intention to attend at the property

4) Should the Minister wish to expropriate, it should serve a clear notice of its intention to expropriate, as well as the offered compensation, upon the owner/occupier.

5) Should a party object to the amount of compensation offered, alternatively should no compensation be offered, then the affected party must address written correspondence to the Minister within 60 days of the notice.

6) The procedure to be followed by the owner/occupier of expropriated land in accepting/declining the offer is set out, as well as the procedure to be followed in the event where no compensation is offered.

7) The procedure to be followed in the event of an unsettled dispute regarding compensation for expropriated land is set out, as well as the procedure for effecting payments pending the finalisation of any compensation disputes.

8) It sets out the basis on which compensation is to be determined.

a. Primarily a market value based on the concept of a willing buyer and willing seller

9) It stipulates which courts have jurisdiction to determine compensation disputes.

The interesting thing is, the summary above does not refer to the recently enacted Act, but it actually refers to the Expropriation Act No. 63 of 1975, which was still in force and effect until it was repealed by the Act 13 of 2024. Yes, an expropriation Act has been in existence since 9 July 1975, and similar acts are effective globally.
Take a minute and read it again – the Act No. 63 of 1975 provides for expropriation of property, with or without compensation, for public and certain other purposes (these certain other purposes are not defined in the Act).

It also refers to outdated Acts which facilitated racial segregation such as the Slums Act No. 53 of 1934, the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act 29 of 1937, the Bantu Trust and Land Act, The Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act and the Rural Coloured Areas Act.
On 4 February 1997, the Constitution of South Africa took effect. This is widely regarded as a very good constitution, well drafted, and taking the history of South Africa as well as its desired outcomes into account.

Section 25 of the Constitution provides for the following:

• No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.

• Property may be expropriated for public purpose or in the public interest, and subject to compensation as agreed or decided or approved by a court. Public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform and property is not limited to land.

• In the event of expropriation, the accompanying compensation must be just and equitable.

Accordingly, let us now look at the newly enacted Act No. 13 of 2024.

The Expropriation Act provides for the following:

1) To provide for the expropriation of property for:
a. a public purpose or in the public interest;
b. to regulate the procedure for the expropriation of property for a public purpose or in the public interest, including payment of compensation;
c. to identify instances where the provision of nil compensation may be just and equitable for expropriation in the public interest;
d. to repeal the Expropriation Act, 1975; and
e. to provide for matters connected therewith.
This is similar to the previous Act, but instead of referring to “certain other purposes” (which is not defined) it refers to “public interest” which is defined in the Act to include, without limitation,

“the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources in order to redress the results of past racial discriminatory laws or practices”

which stated commitment is entrenched in Section 25 of our Constitution.

The new Act is intended to bring our laws in line with our Constitution.

2) The Minister is empowered, subject to the Act, to expropriate property for public purposes or in the public interest.
a. This is similar to the previous Act. However, it adds the following:

i. Expropriating authority may not expropriate property arbitrarily or for a purpose other than a public purpose or in the public interest.

ii. Expropriation of property may not be exercised unless expropriating authority has attempted but failed to reach agreement with the owner or holder of a right in property for the acquisition of the property on reasonable terms. The only exception is where expropriation is urgent, in which case expropriation will only be temporary and for a maximum period of 12 months.

3) The Minister may authorise any person to attend at the property to inspect and assess the potentially expropriated property.
a. This is similar to the previous Act, however, unlike in the previous Act, property may only be entered with written authority of the expropriating authority and the written consent of the owner, or failing consent, a court order authorising entry

b. Expropriating authority must also consider all relevant circumstances when deciding whether to expropriate property and must look at various factors.

4) It states that should the Minister wish to expropriate, it should serve a clear notice of its intention to expropriate, as well as the offered compensation, upon the owner/occupier.
a. The requirements here are similar to the previous Act

5) It states that should the parties fail to agree regarding the expropriation, then the disputing party must address written correspondence to the expropriating authority within 90 days (30 more days than the previous Act) of the date of the expropriation notice and request that legal proceedings be instituted to resolve the matter. Alternatively, the disputing party may institute legal proceedings within 180 days of the date of the expropriation notice. Further, any party may approach the court on any matter relating to the application of the Act.

6) The procedure to be followed in the event of an unsettled dispute regarding compensation for expropriated land is set out, as well as the procedure for effecting payments pending the finalisation of any compensation disputes.

7) It sets out the basis on which compensation is to be determined.

a. Compensation is determined primarily on just and equitable balance between public interest, interest of those affected and having regard to various relevant circumstances, e.g. current use of property, history of acquisition and use of property, market value of property, extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property, and purpose of the expropriation, which is a reiteration of Section 25(3) of the Constitution.

b. The new Act also sets out further instances, together with the above, which should be considered when NIL compensation is contemplated for expropriated land only (not other property, e.g. movables or rights) in the public interest, that is:
i. Whether or not the land is being used;
ii. Whether the owner’s main purpose is not to develop the land or use it to generate an income, but to rather benefit from the appreciation of the land’s market value;
iii. Whether the owner has abandoned the land by failing to exercise control over it despite being reasonably capable of doing so; and
iv. Whether the market value of the land is equivalent to, or less than, the present value of direct state investment or subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the land

8) It stipulates which courts have jurisdiction to determine compensation disputes as well as the dispute procedure.

9) It repeals the Expropriation Act No. 63 of 1975.

Taking the above into account, we can summarise the apparent contentious issues below:

1. Does the new Act promote and encourage land grabbing?
1.1. The Act does not promote, justify, encourage or facilitate land grabbing.
1.2. The Act does not promote, justify, encourage or facilitate arbitrary deprivation of property. Accordingly, expropriation cannot be undertaken arbitrarily.

2. Does the new Act identify white property or farm owners for expropriation purposes?
2.1. The Act does not target any racial demographic for expropriation purposes.
2.2. The Act does not target any property (e.g. farms) for expropriation purposes.
2.3. The Act mentions race only when referring to a commitment to land reform in order to redress the results of past racial discriminatory laws or practices, as contained in our Constitution.

3. Does the new Act provide for expropriation without compensation?
3.1. The Act provides for expropriation without compensation in limited circumstances, which are clearly defined.

4. Do people who dispute an expropriation have avenues to have their dispute adjudicated?
4.1. Should a party object to an expropriation of property, they will have various avenues available to have the objection adjudicated.

I think that this matter once again highlights the disconnect between the legal fraternity (which seems largely unphased by the adoption of the new Expropriation Act) and the politicians claiming an egregious infringement of rights.

Links to the two Acts are enclosed below for your perusal in order for you to form your own conclusions – always refer to the source of information:

Expropriation Act No. 63 of 1975
-https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201505/act-63-1975.pdf

Expropriation Act No. 13 of 2024
-https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202501/51964-expropriationact13-2024.pdf

04/05/2025

Commentary on: AfriForum vs EFF and Two Others

AfriForum has been in the news recently after calling the competence and impartiality of the South African judiciary into question. This is a dangerous allegation to make, and if raised should be strongly substantiated.

I break down and summarise a sequence of events leading up to this point.

AfriForum brought Julius Malema (JM) and the African National Congress (ANC - the party of which he was a member at the time) before the Equality Court in 2010 after JM sang Dubula ibhunu. The matter was brought on appeal before the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) where the matter was settled between the parties, with no declaration of the singing of the song being classified as hate speech but largely agreeing that all parties should be sensitive to potentially inflammatory remarks/songs and to act with restraint.

Later, in 2022, AfriForum again brought JM before the Equality Court, this time as a member of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), together the EFF and Dr Ndlozi. The matter primarily involved JM and Dr Ndlozi singing Dubula ibhunu and Shisa lamabuna respectively, wherein AfriForum requested that the respondents’ singing of the songs be deemed as hate speech and that they be banned from singing the song in the future.

The Equality Court held that AfriForum had failed to “make out a case that the lyrics of the impugned songs constitute hate speech as envisaged in section 10(1) and 7(a) of the Equality Act”, and dismissed the application in 2022.

AfriForum then applied to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) for leave to appeal against the Equality Court judgment, which leave was granted. The matter was then heard in the SCA.

Regarding appeals in general against court decisions, they work was follows:

1. An appeal can be heard in the same court (by more judges), or in a higher court
2. The application for leave to appeal should be brought within a specific time period
3. The appeal must be in respect of:
3.1. The court not following the proper procedure in arriving at the judgment; or
3.2. The court making an incorrect finding based on the evidence presented
4. The default position is that new evidence cannot be admitted on appeal
4.1. The appeal is against the court incorrectly making a finding based on the evidence initially before it. It would be unfair to judge a court’s decision by taking newly presented information into account.

The matter was then heard in the SCA where both parties raised the following further points:

o AfriForum applied for the recusal of one of the judges, claiming bias, but this was dismissed. Recusal is defined as the removal of a judge due to the judge being unqualified, a conflict of interest or bias.

o JM claimed that the matter had already been settled previously (as per the settlement agreement with AfriForum in 2012) and therefore he could not be brought before the court again by the same party for the same matter in which the same relief is sought, however, AfriForum contended that JM was in breach of the settlement agreement, and together with the court concluding that the Constitutional matter balancing potential hate speech with freedom of expression (which are both enshrined in our Constitution) was in the public interest, the SCA held that it would be unfair to AfriForum to deprive them of the opportunity to appeal the matter.

However, AfriForum in its appeal to the SCA prayed for a more far-reaching order than initially requested in the Equality Court, and had to concede this position.

The SCA, in passing judgment reiterated the parameters contained in the Constitution and the Equality Act for matters to be declared hate speech, while at the same time pointing out those aspects of the Constitution which protects freedom of speech and the operation of political parties – both aspects of which are crucial to a functioning democracy. The SCA states that speech that is unpopular or offensive does not necessarily amount to hate speech.

The SCA stated that AfriForum failed to substantiate its case in its written papers submitted to the Equality Court, and relied primarily on “expert” evidence at the trial stage, the quality of which experts were called into question – AfriForum’s main witness, Mr Ernst Roets testified as an “expert witness”, but his status as an expert was rejected by the Equality Court.

Mr Roets was an employee of AfriForum, confirmed that he had a vested interest in the outcome of the matter, was unqualified to provide statistical analysis upon which AfriForum was relying in this case, and based his testimony largely on his book (which does not connect farm killings to the singing of any songs) and hearsay evidence.

AfriForum’s two other expert witnesses were also rejected by the Equality Court.

AfriForum’s two other lay witnesses, who were victims of attacks on farms did not help their case either as:

• The first witness could not link the singing of the song to the attack, which she testified appeared to be a robbery; and

• The second witness was attacked in 2008, before the singing of the song which forms the basis of this case. Accordingly, there cannot be a link between the singing of the song and his attack.

AfriForum alleged that farm fires following the singing of the songs by the Respondents were as a result of their disputed utterances, but these allegations were disproved.

AfriForum abandoned large parts of their case brought before the Equality Court when appearing in the SCA – this is not unusual as an appeal is generally not a re-trial of the entire, but in this instance, it may indicate weakness in their original case.

On the other hand, respondents’ expert witness, Professor Gunner, was held to be a reliable witness and provided testimony regarding the importance of songs in communication as well as its figurative interpretations and importance, taking context of the song into account.

The SCA held that:

1. AfriForum failed to prove hate speech committed on behalf of the Respondents;
2. the aspects of the song to which AfriForum takes offence should be interpreted in the context of the whole song as well as the political setting in which it is sung; and
3. that a reasonable person understands that the song is to be interpreted metaphorically as part of the EFF’s political goals of wealth redistribution in South Africa.

The SCA accordingly dismissed AfriForum’s appeal in 2024.
AfriForum then applied to the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal against the SCA judgment. The Constitutional Court, after considering AfriForum’s application and the aforementioned course of events, did not grant leave to appeal in March 2025 as the matter bears no reasonable prospects of success. AfriForum therefore has no further legal recourse in this matter against JM.

It is possible that the outcome may have been different had AfriForum taken more care in formulating their case, and the SCA clearly pointed out the holes in their case, which holes AfriForum fails to mention when addressing the media.

In light of the above, I submit that AfriForum has since wrongfully called into question the integrity of South Africa’s judiciary, and the media should themselves take more care when publishing one-sided complaints from parties who suffered defeat in our courts.

Links to the two judgments are enclosed below for your perusal in order for you to form your own conclusions – always refer to the source of information:

Equality Court judgment - https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAEQC/2022/2.html

Supreme Court of Appeal judgment - https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2024/82.html

25/04/2025

A look at South Africa's Expropriation Act, it's place in our society and what lead us to this point.

A look at the Expropriation Act, its place in our society and what lead us to this point.

31/03/2025

AfriForum vs Economic Freedom Fighters and Others

AfriForum has been in the news recently after calling the competence and impartiality of the South African judiciary into question. This is a dangerous allegation to make, and if raised should be strongly substantiated.

I break down and summarise a sequence of events leading up to this point.

AfriForum brought Julius Malema (JM) and the African National Congress (ANC - the party of which he was a member at the time) before the Equality Court in 2010 after JM sang Dubula ibhunu. The matter was brought on appeal before the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) where the matter was settled between the parties, with no declaration of the singing of the song being classified as hate speech but largely agreeing that all parties should be sensitive to potentially inflammatory remarks/songs and to act with restraint.

Later, in 2022, AfriForum again brought JM before the Equality Court, this time as a member of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), together the EFF and Dr Ndlozi. The matter primarily involved JM and Dr Ndlozi singing Dubula ibhunu and Shisa lamabuna respectively, wherein AfriForum requested that the respondents’ singing of the songs be deemed as hate speech and that they be banned from singing the song in the future.
The Equality Court held that AfriForum had failed to “make out a case that the lyrics of the impugned songs constitute hate speech as envisaged in section 10(1) and 7(a) of the Equality Act”, and dismissed the application in 2022.

AfriForum then applied to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) for leave to appeal against the Equality Court judgment, which leave was granted.

The matter was then heard in the SCA.

Regarding appeals in general against court decisions, they work was follows:

1. An appeal can be heard in the same court (by more judges), or in a higher court

2. The application for leave to appeal should be brought within a specific time period

3. The appeal must be in respect of:
3.1. The court not following the proper procedure in arriving at the judgment; or
3.2. The court making an incorrect finding based on the evidence presented

4. The default position is that new evidence cannot be admitted on appeal
4.1. The appeal is against the court incorrectly making a finding based on the evidence initially before it. It would be unfair to judge a court’s decision by taking newly presented information into account.

The matter was then heard in the SCA where both parties raised the following further points:

o AfriForum applied for the recusal of one of the judges, claiming bias, but this was dismissed. Recusal is defined as the removal of a judge due to the judge being unqualified, a conflict of interest or bias.

o JM claimed that the matter had already been settled previously (as per the settlement agreement with AfriForum in 2012) and therefore he could not be brought before the court again by the same party for the same matter in which the same relief is sought, however, AfriForum contended that JM was in breach of the settlement agreement, and together with the court concluding that the Constitutional matter balancing potential hate speech with freedom of expression (which are both enshrined in our Constitution) was in the public interest, the SCA held that it would be unfair to AfriForum to deprive them of the opportunity to appeal the matter.

However, AfriForum in its appeal to the SCA prayed for a more far-reaching order than initially requested in the Equality Court, and had to concede this position.

The SCA, in passing judgment reiterated the parameters contained in the Constitution and the Equality Act for matters to be declared hate speech, while at the same time pointing out those aspects of the Constitution which protects freedom of speech and the operation of political parties – both aspects of which are crucial to a functioning democracy. The SCA states that speech that is unpopular or offensive does not necessarily amount to hate speech.

The SCA stated that AfriForum failed to substantiate its case in its written papers submitted to the Equality Court, and relied primarily on “expert” evidence at the trial stage, the quality of which experts were called into question – AfriForum’s main witness, Mr Ernst Roets testified as an “expert witness”, but his status as an expert was rejected by the Equality Court.

Mr Roets was an employee of AfriForum, confirmed that he had a vested interest in the outcome of the matter, was unqualified to provide statistical analysis upon which AfriForum was relying in this case, and based his testimony largely on his book (which does not connect farm killings to the singing of any songs) and hearsay evidence.

AfriForum’s two other expert witnesses were also rejected by the Equality Court.

AfriForum’s two other lay witnesses, who were victims of attacks on farms did not help their case either as:

• The first witness could not link the singing of the song to the attack, which she testified appeared to be a robbery; and

• The second witness was attacked in 2008, before the singing of the song which forms the basis of this case. Accordingly, there cannot be a link between the singing of the song and his attack.

AfriForum alleged that farm fires following the singing of the songs by the Respondents were as a result of their disputed utterances, but these allegations were disproved.

AfriForum abandoned large parts of their case brought before the Equality Court when appearing in the SCA – this is not unusual as an appeal is generally not a re-trial of the entire, but in this instance, it may indicate weakness in their original case.

On the other hand, respondents’ expert witness, Professor Gunner, was held to be a reliable witness and provided testimony regarding the importance of songs in communication as well as its figurative interpretations and importance, taking context of the song into account.

The SCA held that:

1. AfriForum failed to prove hate speech committed on behalf of the Respondents;

2. the aspects of the song to which AfriForum takes offence should be interpreted in the context of the whole song as well as the political setting in which it is sung; and

3. that a reasonable person understands that the song is to be interpreted metaphorically as part of the EFF’s political goals of wealth redistribution in South Africa.

The SCA accordingly dismissed AfriForum’s appeal in 2024.

AfriForum then applied to the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal against the SCA judgment. The Constitutional Court, after considering AfriForum’s application and the aforementioned course of events, did not grant leave to appeal in March 2025 as the matter bears no reasonable prospects of success. AfriForum therefore has no further legal recourse in this matter against JM.

It is possible that the outcome may have been different had AfriForum taken more care in formulating their case, and the SCA clearly pointed out the holes in their case, which holes AfriForum fails to mention when addressing the media.

In light of the above, I submit that AfriForum is now wrongfully calling into question the integrity of South Africa’s judiciary, and the media should themselves take more care when publicising one-sided complaints from parties who suffered defeat in our courts.

Links to the two judgments are enclosed below for your perusal in order for you to form your own conclusions – always refer to the source of information:

Equality Court judgment - https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAEQC/2022/2.html

Supreme Court of Appeal judgment - https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2024/82.html

JULIUS SELLO MALEMA                                                          nd