Delay in hate speech case of Zuma’s son

DURBAN Equality Court magistrate Irfaan Khalil yesterday reluctantly agreed to postpone the hate speech case brought by the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) against President Jacob Zuma’s son Edward.

The commission is seeking a R100 000 fine for Edward.

However, he contends that viewing his words as hate speech was the personal opinion of SAHRC chairperson Bongani Majola, who lodged the complaint.

In an open letter distributed in July last year, Edward hit out at now axed ministers Derek Hanekom and Pravin Gordhan, calling both sellouts and supporters of white monopoly capital.

In the same diatribe, Edward called Gordhan “one of the most corrupt cadres of the ANC who thinks African natives are no better than just being sugar cane cutters who must be forever subservient to a master like him for sustenance”.

He described Hanekom as a “white Afrikaner Askari” whom he said was “no better than a vile dog trained to maul a black skin”.

The SAHRC issued a statement soon thereafter, saying Edward’s utterances promoted hatred on the basis of race, that he had violated the constitutional right to freedom of expression and that it would be seeking appropriate redress.

Deliberating with legal representatives for both parties at court yesterday, Khalil asked why the commission had not acted expeditiously in filing a replying affidavit to Edward’s response.

It would not be in keeping with best practice to see the case dragged on unnecessarily “depending on the whims of the parties”, he said.

Yesterday had been set down for a directions hearing, but both parties agreed to a postponement.

Pavershree Padayachee, on behalf of the commission, said chairperson Majola had been overseas but had since returned.

The commission was seeking the adjournment “to file a more comprehensive response,” she said.

“It has taken you three months or so to file a replying affidavit,” Khalil told Padayachee.

Representing Edward, advocate Ayanda Mkhwanazi said he did not disagree with the postponement.

Khalil said he didn’t think the matter was a complex one, but agreed to the postponement “reluctantly”, saying the replying affidavit would help to contextualise the dispute.

Although both parties had agreed to pay their own costs, Khalil said he would not rule on that yet.

“Should I order the SAHRC to pay costs because of the delay?

“It is best to reserve the issue of costs until the end of the matter,” he said.

Khalil ordered that the commission’s replying affidavit be filed and served on or before February 19 and the case set down for May 22 for the directions hearing. – African News Agency/ANA

It would not be in keeping with best practice to drag on case depending on your whims