Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of South Africa’s democracy, but it is not unlimited. The SAHRC v Malema case highlights where the law draws the line between protected political speech and hate speech, offering important lessons for politicians, voters and constitutional democracy.
A recent Constitutional Court judgment has clarified that the South African Human Rights Commission may investigate rights violations and make recommendations, but cannot itself impose legally binding remedial action. While some may view this as weakening the Commission, the judgment instead reinforces the constitutional principle that final coercive power belongs to the courts. The ruling therefore draws an important line between protecting human rights effectively and ensuring that all public power remains subject to the rule of law.
In a report on child malnutrition, the South African Human Rights Commission (“SAHRC”) stated that the situation in the Eastern Cape was of “utmost urgency”.
