Key Takeaways
- The Johannesburg Equality Court found media personality and traditional healer Ngizwe Mchunu guilty of hate speech, harassment, and unfair discrimination against LGBTQ people.
- The offending material consisted of Facebook videos and a flyer posted between 30 September and 6 October 2025, together with a march to the Kwa Mai Mai traditional market on 5 October 2025.
- The court ordered Mchunu to publish an unconditional apology, complete 20 hours of human‑rights sensitisation training, donate R250 000 to an equality‑focused organisation, and pay the complainants’ legal costs.
- Mchunu is permanently prohibited from publishing content that discriminates against LGBTQ individuals or organising demonstrations that promote such prejudice.
- The judgment underscores South Africa’s constitutional commitments to dignity, equality, and freedom from discrimination.
- The South African Human Rights Commission welcomed the ruling as a clear signal that hate speech against vulnerable groups will not be tolerated.
Background of the Case
The Johannesburg high court, sitting as the Equality Court, delivered its judgment on Friday after a series of proceedings initiated by transgender rights organisation TransHope, the Hate Crimes Working Group, and the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). The case centred on statements and actions made by media personality and traditional healer Ngizwe Mchunu between late September and early October 2025. Mchunu was accused of disseminating hateful rhetoric targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals, both online and through a public march. The Equality Court’s mandate is to adjudicate violations of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA), making this ruling a significant test of South Africa’s hate‑speech jurisprudence.
The Offensive Online Content
Between 30 September and 6 October 2025, Mchunu uploaded a series of videos and a flyer to his Facebook page. The material depicted LGBTQ people as morally deviant, accused them of undermining traditional African values, and called for their exclusion from communal spaces. The flyer, circulated widely, contained slogans that labelled homosexuality as “un‑African” and urged viewers to “protect our culture” by opposing gay and lesbian rights. Judge Gregory Wright noted that the language used was demeaning, incendiary, and intended to provoke hostility toward a protected group, satisfying the statutory definition of hate speech under PEPUDA.
Legal Findings: Hate Speech, Harassment, Unfair Discrimination
Judge Wright found that the Facebook content constituted hate speech because it advocated hatred based on sexual orientation and gender identity. He further determined that the same material, together with the march, amounted to harassment—behaviour that created a hostile or intimidating environment for LGBTQ persons. The court also held that Mchunu’s actions represented unfair discrimination, as they imposed disadvantages on a historically marginalised community without justification. Each finding was grounded in the explicit prohibitions of PEPUDA, which bars speech that undermines dignity and perpetuates systemic bias.
The Kwa Mai Mai March as Harassment
On 5 October 2025, Mchunu led a march to the Kwa Mai Mai traditional market in Johannesburg, carrying placards that echoed the anti‑LGBTQ sentiments expressed online. The procession attracted onlookers and participants who shouted derogatory chants, creating a public spectacle that targeted gay and lesbian market traders and visitors. The court concluded that this public demonstration was not merely expressive speech but an act of harassment, as it intentionally caused distress, fear, and a sense of exclusion among LGBTQ individuals present in the market area. The march therefore satisfied the dual criteria of harassment and unfair discrimination under the Equality Court’s remit.
Corrective Measures Ordered by the Court
To address the harm caused, the judge issued a series of remedial orders. Mchunu must publish an unconditional apology on his Facebook page within five days and keep that post pinned as the top entry for three months, ensuring widespread visibility. He is also required to complete 20 hours of human‑rights sensitisation training administered by the SAHRC or an institution nominated by it within 120 days. Additionally, Mchunu must pay R250 000 within 60 days to either TransHope or the Hate Crimes Working Group; the funds are to support education, sensitisation, social‑cohesion initiatives, and hate‑crime prevention, especially in rural communities.
Prohibitions on Future Conduct
Beyond monetary and educational remedies, the court imposed lasting restrictions on Mchunu’s behaviour. He is permanently prohibited from publishing any content—whether directly or indirectly—that discriminates against LGBTQ people. This ban extends to social media, public speeches, flyers, and any other medium through which hateful messages could be disseminated. Furthermore, Mchunu may not organise or participate in demonstrations, rallies, or marches that promote discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. These injunctions aim to prevent recurrence and to signal that hate‑motivated advocacy will carry enduring legal consequences.
Financial Obligations and Legal Costs
In addition to the R250 000 donation, Mchunu was ordered to reimburse the legal costs incurred by the complainants—TransHope, the Hate Crimes Working Group, and the SAHRC—for bringing the case to court. The judgment did not specify an exact amount for these costs, leaving it to the taxing officer to determine a reasonable sum based on the work undertaken. This component of the order reinforces the principle that litigants who successfully enforce equality rights should not bear the financial burden of vindicating constitutional protections.
Mchunu’s Lack of Participation
Throughout the proceedings, Mchunu failed to file opposing papers or attend hearings, despite being given multiple opportunities to present a defence. His non‑participation was noted by the judge as a factor that limited the court’s ability to consider any mitigating arguments he might have raised. The judgment highlights that a party’s refusal to engage does not shield them from liability; rather, it may be interpreted as an acceptance of the allegations’ factual basis, especially when the evidence presented by the applicants is uncontested and compelling.
Response from the South African Human Rights Commission
The SAHRC welcomed the ruling as a strong affirmation that hate speech and discriminatory conduct against vulnerable, historically marginalised communities will not be tolerated in South Africa’s constitutional democracy. In a statement, the commission emphasized that the judgment reinforces the constitutional values of dignity, equality, and freedom from discrimination. It praised the court’s blend of corrective measures—such as the apology and training—and restorative remedies, namely the financial donation aimed at fostering social cohesion. The SAHRC noted that the decision sends a clear message to potential offenders that the Equality Court will act decisively to uphold the nation’s commitment to a non‑racial, non‑sexist society.
Implications for Equality Law and Society
This judgment marks an important development in South Africa’s evolving hate‑speech jurisprudence. By coupling punitive financial sanctions with rehabilitative training and a public apology, the Equality Court demonstrated a holistic approach that seeks both to punish wrongdoing and to promote attitudinal change. The permanent injunction against future discriminatory content and demonstrations serves as a deterrent, while the donation to grassroots organisations aims to strengthen community resilience against hate crimes. Legal scholars suggest that the case may be cited in future disputes involving online hate speech, particularly as digital platforms amplify the reach of harmful rhetoric. Ultimately, the ruling underscores that South Africa’s constitutional democracy will not tolerate the erosion of equality through hate‑filled expression, and it affirms the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.