equality court hearing looms for malema, vavi 
07 July 2008

Today sees the expiry of the 14-day notice given to Malema by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) to apologise for his statement at a June 16 youth rally in Free State that the youth league would take up arms and kill for Zuma.

Days later, Vavi used similar words at Popcru vice-president Pretty Shuping’s funeral. They both refused to apologise.

Commission CEO Tseliso Thipanyane warned that if they did not apologise, the commission would take them to the Equality Court. “It is our responsibility to change the attitude of the people in this country. If we say it is wrong, and then you say it is not wrong, you should come and give us reasons, and if you refuse then we would go to court,” Thipanyane said.

He said it was an offence under the Human Rights Commission Act to obstruct the commission’s work and functioning. Vavi and Malema had gone too far in attacking the independence of the constitutional body, which was in charge of protecting democratic values.

“This attitude is very worrying. The SAHRC is a constitutional body established to enhance and protect human rights … and if people find us not doing our work or abusing powers they should challenge us in court, not insult or attack us in corners,” Thipanyane said.  “They are encouraging South Africans to disrespect the country’s constitution.” “We are not immune to mistakes. We are a public body operating on taxpayers’ money. We need to be accountable for our work.”

Thipanyane said the remarks by Malema and Vavi threatened the integrity of the institution. He had even asked Parliament to intervene and protect the commission.  “If their remarks were taken out of context, and they did not mean what they said, why did they sing the very same song on Sunday before the ANC president Jacob Zuma delivered his speech?”

Thipanyane was referring to youth league members singing of their readiness to “kill for Zuma” at the league’s conference at the weekend.

He said there were many inconsistencies in SA, and it was necessary to decide where “we need to go as a country”. The “SAHRC’s preliminary findings were that those words spoken by the two were unconstitutional. Why do they attack the commission for doing its work?”

Luphert Chilwane,  www.businessday.co.za