Key Takeaways
- Ngizwe Mlando Mchunu issued an unconditional public apology and retraction to EFF President Julius Malema after two binding court orders in May 2026.
- The apology followed legal counsel and acknowledged the defamatory nature of his earlier remarks.
- Retracted statements included false claims that Malema received $60 million from Nigerian drug dealers, looted VBS Mutual Bank, and misappropriated funds in Ekurhuleni and through On Point Engineering.
- Mchunu also withdrew personal insults such as calling Malema a “political devil,” a “dead snake,” and a “dog,” and his challenge to meet him in Nkandla.
- The North Gauteng High Court ruled the comments defamatory and barred Mchunu from repeating them in any form.
- In his concluding statement, Mchunu urged the public and his supporters to respect the court’s decision and his retraction.
Background of the Defamation Case
The controversy began when media personality Ngizwe Mlando Mchunu repeatedly made inflammatory accusations against Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema. Across various platforms, Mchunu alleged that Malema had accepted illicit funds, engaged in corruption, and engaged in criminal conduct. These claims escalated over several months, drawing public scrutiny and prompting Malema’s legal team to seek redress. The statements were not merely political commentary; they contained specific financial accusations and personal epithets that Malema’s representatives argued were false and damaging to his reputation. The growing tension set the stage for legal intervention, as Malema pursued defamation remedies to curb the spread of what he deemed baseless and harmful rhetoric.
Details of the Court Orders
In May 2026, the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria issued two binding orders directing Mchunu to cease and desist from repeating the alleged defamatory statements. The judgments emphasized that the remarks were made with reckless disregard for truth and constituted actionable defamation under South African law. The court mandated that Mchunu refrain from uttering, publishing, or otherwise disseminating the allegations “explicitly, impliedly, or otherwise.” Additionally, the orders required Mchunu to furnish a formal retraction and apology to Malema within a stipulated timeframe, failure to attract penalties including potential contempt of court sanctions. The rulings underscored the judiciary’s role in balancing freedom of expression with the protection of individuals from unfounded attacks.
Mchunu’s Public Apology Statement
Responding to the judicial directives, Mchunu released a formal statement on Thursday, declaring an unconditional public apology to Julius Malema. He noted that after consulting legal counsel, he fully grasped the gravity of the court’s instructions and the potential repercussions of non‑compliance. Mchunu expressed sincere regret for the harm caused by his earlier comments and affirmed his commitment to abstain from publishing similar impugned statements in the future. The apology was presented not as a tactical concession but as a sincere acknowledgment of the legal and ethical boundaries he had crossed. By issuing the retraction, Mchunu sought to fulfill his legal obligations while attempting to restore a measure of credibility with both the public and the plaintiff.
Specific Allegations Retracted
The retraction explicitly withdrew a series of serious accusations Mchunu had leveled against Malema. Among them was the claim that Malema had received $60 million from Nigerian drug dealers and illegal foreigners to shield them from law‑enforcement scrutiny. He also retracted allegations that Malema had looted the collapsed VBS Mutual Bank, misappropriated municipal funds in Ekurhuleni, and diverted money through the engineering firm On Point Engineering. Each of these assertions had been presented as fact without verifiable evidence, and the court found them to be unsubstantiated and damaging. By withdrawing these claims, Mchunu conceded that they lacked factual basis and agreed not to repeat them in any form, thereby addressing the core defamatory content identified by the judgment.
Personal Insults and Language Used
Beyond financial accusations, Mchunu’s retraction covered the personal invective he had directed at Malema. He had labeled the EFF leader a “political devil,” a “dead snake,” and a “dog,” terms that the court deemed pejorative and intended to humiliate. Mchunu had also publicly challenged Malema to confront him at his residence in Nkandla, framing the invitation as a provocation rather than a legitimate political debate. The apology acknowledged that such language crossed the line from robust political discourse into harassment and defamation. By retracting these insults, Mchunu aimed to mitigate the reputational harm caused by his derogatory epithets and to align his future commentary with standards of respectful engagement.
April 30 Johannesburg Interview Remarks
On April 30, during an interview in Johannesburg, Mchunu reiterated many of the offending statements, providing a vivid illustration of the conduct that prompted legal action. In a translated transcript, he declared, “I won’t speak about a dead snake, Julius Malema is like a dead snake something that won’t wake up,” before insisting that Malema “must go to jail.” He repeated accusations of Malema taking money from On Point Engineering, looting VBS, and “eating money of illegal foreigners,” while again claiming the politician received $60 million from illegal foreigners. Moreover, he referred to Malema as “a political devil” and asserted that “the president is scared of him.” This interview exemplified the persistent nature of Mchunu’s rhetoric and reinforced the court’s view that the statements were not isolated lapses but part of a pattern of defamatory behavior.
Legal Ruling and Implications
The North Gauteng High Court’s ruling hinged on the determination that Mchunu’s statements were false, made without adequate verification, and caused demonstrable harm to Malema’s reputation. The judgment emphasized that freedom of expression does not extend to the dissemination of unfounded allegations that could incite public hatred or undermine an individual’s standing. By issuing the interdict, the court sought to prevent further repetition of the defamatory content, thereby protecting Malema while upholding the principle that public figures remain entitled to legal redress against baseless attacks. The decision also serves as a precedent for similar cases, highlighting the judiciary’s willingness to intervene when media figures overstep the bounds of responsible commentary.
Mchunu’s Call to Supporters and Conclusion
In concluding his statement, Mchunu appealed to the general public and his base of supporters to respect his decision and the formal retraction. He urged his followers to accept the court’s ruling as a legitimate exercise of the law and to refrain from perpetuating the withdrawn allegations. Mchunu framed the apology as a step toward personal accountability and a gesture of respect for the legal system. By encouraging his audience to move beyond the controversy, he aimed to de‑escalate tensions and foster a more constructive political discourse. The episode underscores the potential legal consequences of incendiary speech and illustrates how judicial interventions can compel public figures to amend their conduct in accordance with defamation standards.