A platform policed: The paradox of free speech and the DA’s hush: Image: Supplied

A platform policed: The paradox of free speech and the DA’s hush

Blogger Rumani’s Twitter ban reignites debate in South Africa on satire vs. censorship. DA’s response, or lack thereof, takes center stage.


A platform policed: The paradox of free speech and the DA’s hush: Image: Supplied

The banishment of blogger Rumani from Twitter (X) has reignited a fiery discussion in South Africa regarding the balance between satire and censorship, with the Democratic Alliance’s (DA’s) response or conspicuous lack thereof taking centre stage. The situation started with a simple jest at the expense of DA Leader John Steenhuisen but soon exposed the deeper issue of how similar cases are differently adjudicated, highlighting potential racial biases.

X profile screenshot: Supplied


We have also contacted a media personality and a congressman who requested to stay anonymous. They have drawn parallels between the treatment of Rumani’s case and the discriminatory practices reminiscent of apartheid, like what is happening in Israel in terms of racial discrimination against Palestinians. The incident serves as a stark reminder of the progress yet to be made in South Africa’s ongoing journey towards racial equality and justice.


The Democratic Alliance’s failure to comment on the selective censorship showcased in Rumani’s suspension has been interpreted by many as a troubling sign. This absence of a stance, especially when contrasted with the party’s silence regarding a member’s mocking of a racial group, has elicited concerns of implicit approval of discrimination, muddying the waters of their commitment to free speech.

The DA’s silent posture in the wake of such a contentious issue speaks volumes. This silence is not merely the absence of a response but rather an active choice that reverberates through the community, raising the spectre of tacit consent to the selective censorship reminiscent of an apartheid past.

The failure to openly address and rectify these disparities not only undercuts the party’s credibility but also weakens the fabric of South African democracy, which is built on the tenets of equality and free expression.

It is a fundamental democratic principle that silence in the face of injustice serves to reinforce the status quo. In not speaking up, the DA risks being complicit in the very discrimination they have historically opposed. As South Africa continues to wrestle with its legacy of inequality, the DA’s reticence to engage with such critical issues is more than just a missed opportunity for leadership it is a troubling indication of where the party’s priorities may lie.

Without a clear and vocal stand against all forms of censorship and discrimination, the DA’s silence may be remembered as an echo of apartheid’s exclusionary practices, resonating with uncomfortable familiarity in the collective memory of a nation still striving for true equality.