The EFF leader Julius Malema outside the magistrate’s court in KuGompo city. (Photo: Mark Andrews/AFP)
The comments made by Julius Malema, leader of the EFF, after the Magistrate’s Court in KuGompo city (formerly East London) sentenced him to prison for breaches of the Firearms Act, are deeply worrying.
After the sentencing proceedings outside the court, among other things, he accused Magistrate Twanet Olivier of racism and hinted that she is a member of the civil rights group AfriForum. The organization initially filed the complaint – about the firing of the firearm.
“We are fighting the enemy and the enemy is white supremacy,” Malema told his supporters.
He also argued that the case is an attempt to silence him – but one that will not succeed.
Glynnis Breytenbach, the DA’s spokesperson on justice and constitutional development, said Malema’s sentencing confirms the principle that everyone, regardless of status or political influence, is subject to the laws of the land.
“The independence and authority of our courts remains the cornerstone of our constitutional democracy and the ruling emphasizes that no one can evade accountability.”
Malema’s comment after the proceedings therefore raises concerns.
“His careless labeling of the presiding magistrate as a ‘racist’ creates serious concern that extends far beyond just a single case,” warns Breytenbach.
“Such comments, which are made without substantiated evidence and immediately after a negative verdict, can erode public confidence in the judiciary. This is no small matter. The strength of our legal system rests fundamentally on the trust that citizens have in its impartiality and integrity.”
It is indeed appropriate, and also essential, to study judgments thoroughly, criticize them and, where necessary, challenge them through appropriate legal channels such as appeal applications and revisions. This is how a healthy constitutional democracy functions.
“But making inflammatory accusations against legal professionals, especially on serious grounds such as racism – and this without any credible substantiation – is reckless and harmful.”
Over the years, South Africa’s judiciary has shown its resilience, independence and commitment to upholding the Constitution, even under immense political pressure, says Breytenbach.
“To undermine this institution now for short-term political gain is to weaken the last bulwark against abuse of power.”
This kind of rhetoric also sets a dangerous precedent.
“If political leaders are allowed to discredit members of the judiciary when a judgment is not in line with their interests, it creates the danger that contempt of the court can be normalized. This in turn can threaten the rule of law and opens the door to instability and the erosion of the essence of our democracy.”
South Africa has significant challenges in its criminal justice system and it is important that leaders act responsibly and respect those institutions that protect citizens.
“Liability must be accepted with dignity and differences resolved within the framework of the law.
“The rule of law is not negotiable.”