SONA: Julius Malema addresses the media on the steps of parliament after exiting the National Assembly under duress, 13 February 2020 / Photo by Luke Daniel
SONA: Julius Malema addresses the media on the steps of parliament after exiting the National Assembly under duress, 13 February 2020 / Photo by Luke Daniel
Julius Malema and the EFF have a showdown with the NPA on Tuesday, in one of the highest courts in the land. The Constitutional Court of South Africa will now decide on a High Court ruling regarding land grabs, made in July 2019. The judgement left both parties on either side of the dock claiming victory.
Hearing tomorrow 10am: Is the crime of incitement consistent with the Constitution? Does occupation of land without permission still constitute a punishable offence? (Economic Freedom Fighters v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development) pic.twitter.com/ekNQXWx9Eb
— Constitutional Court (@ConCourtSA) February 17, 2020
Julius Malema in ConCourt – to land grab, or not to land grab?
The official verdict – as in, the judgement on Julius Malema’s application to have the entire Riotous Assemblies Act of 1956 invalidated – failed in the North Gauteng High Court last July. The 64-year-old law was drafted by the apartheid regime, in order to limit the number of public protests.
Malema argued that this law has no place in modern society. But the court didn’t agree with him, declaring the Riotous Assemblies Act as “Constitutional”. However, Juju claimed victory, reasoning the particular section of the act he was charged under will now be reviewed in the Constitutional Court.
The crime of incitement was adjudged to be less severe than the actual crime being committed. Malema has twice been found guilty of encouraging his supporters to carry out “land grabs” – which sees citizens occupy someone else’s property to try and reclaim it as their own.
However, that was the only concession the EFF leader was able to secure, and his violation of The Tresspass Act remains up for debate.
Do the EFF have a chance of winning?
But is “having one foot in ConCourt’s door” enough to get the result Julius Malema is desperate for? It probably won’t be. The political firebrand wants the entire Riotous Assemblies Act scrapped. ConCourt is highly unlikely to bin a rule which rules against land grabs, for fear of allowing reckless and criminal behaviour.
According to the defendants in this case, “the right to freedom of expression can never include the right to incite crime”. Although Julius Malema is championing the cause of “squatting”, the act is illegal in South Africa and it’s almost improbable for a bench of judges to make any ruling that undermines our current laws.
