Extracts from court transcripts of the cross examination of Julius Malema by Advocate Mark Oppenheimer in the case of AfriForum vs the Economic Freedom Fighters, Equality Court, Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg, 17 February 2022:

EXTRACT ONE:

MR OPPENHEIMER: You had stated earlier that we should look at speeches if you want to try and get a sense

. . . [ intervenes]

MR MALEMA: What?

MR OPPENHEIMER: We should look at speeches to get a sense of what peoples positions are. Now, you have a speech that has been, we have played extracts f rom it in this court that are on page 203 of the book. This is an extract f rom your speech in Newcastle on 7 November where you stated this phrase:

“We are not calling for the slaughter of white people, at least for now.”

Now, that qualifier “ at least for now”: can you please explain it for us?

MR MALEMA: I cannot guarantee the future. I said that earlier. I am not a prophet. I do not know what is going to happen in the future. And I have gone to town, M’Lord, you said we do not have time. I have gone to town to explain why I said the things I said. I said if things do not change, there will be an unled revolution in South Africa. And that revolution will affect all of us, including myself.

And we, the black people, who have committed class society and are now staying in the suburbs are going to be actually the biggest victims. Because those who are going on an unled revolution are going to attack us and classify us as sell- outs who have abandoned them in squaller, in poverty in the townships. And for as long as there is no clear program, to change the patterns of property ownership we can all be guaranteed we are all going to be in serious trouble.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Now, the way the sentence is structured you say:

“We are not calling for the slaughter of white people, at least for now.”

That means at some future date we may call for the slaughter of white people. Is that correct?

MR MALEMA: Let us deal with that at that future date. I do not know what is going to happen.

MR OPPENHEIMER: So, you are saying you are not ruling out that in the future you may very well call for the slaughter of white people.

MR MALEMA: It may not be me.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Could it be you?

MR MALEMA: It could be me, yes. But it may not be me.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Yes. So it could be you. You could at some future date call for the slaughter of white people.

MR MALEMA: What would necessitate that?

MR OPPENHEIMER: You tell me.

MR MALEMA: I do not know. Why would he, why would I do that?

MR OPPENHEIMER: You said you could do it in the future. Is that correct?

MR MALEMA: I cannot guarantee that I cannot do it. Or I will not do it.

MR OPPENHEIMER: So, right now if I asked you to pledge. . . [ speaking simultaneously]

MR MALEMA: [ Speaking simultaneously] So I am not ruling out that possibility.

MR OPPENHEIMER: If I asked you to pledge, to say I will never call for the slaughter of white people, would you make that pledge?

MR MALEMA: I will do it with ease.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Make that pledge.

MR MALEMA: Why would I do that?

MR OPPENHEIMER: I am asking you to make that pledge. You said I will do that.

MR MALEMA: I will not do it.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Make the pledge.

MR MALEMA: I will not do it.

MR OPPENHEIMER: You will not do it.

MR MALEMA: Yes.

MR OPPENHEIMER: I understand. Now, yes? it is page 203. I would like to read to you more from that speech. And then I would like to read to you your response from James Myburgh at Politicsweb. Here is the extract. This is at page 12 of the complainant’s bundle. You say:

“That I am here to disturb the white man’s peace. They are right, the white man has been too comfortable for too long. We are here unashamedly to disturb the white man’s peace because we have never known peace. We do not know what peace looks like? They have been living peacefully. They have been swimming in a pool of privilege. They have been enjoying themselves because they always owned our land. We the rightful owners, our peace was disturbed by white man’s arrival here. They committed a black genocide. They killed our people during land possession. Today we are told do not disturb them even when they disturbed our peace. They found peaceful Africans here. They killed them. They slaughtered them like animals.

We are not calling for the slaughtering of white people, at least for now. We will not chase white people into the sea, we will give them a portion, that is where you stay. You cannot own bigger than us. You are a visitor. Visitors must behave. They must know the land belongs to the people of South Africa, the indigenous people of South Africa. For as long as the land is not in the hands of black people, we will remain a concurred nation. We are concurred. We are defeated. 1994 means nothing without the land. Victory will only be victory if the land is restored in the hands of rightful owners. And rightful owners unashamedly is black people. No white person is a rightful owner of the land here in South Africa and in the whole of the African continent. This is our continent. it belongs to us.”

Now, I am going to read to you James Myburgh who is the editor of Politicsweb discussion on that. And he makes a comparison between what you said and what the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels said. it says:

“The propaganda of Goebbels and others aggressively accused the Jews of having done what the National Socialists proceeded to do to them. Thus, the expulsion of the Jews from state employment and the professions was justified by propaganda claiming the Jews had unfairly seized the best jobs for themselves; the dispossession of the Jews by propaganda that they had stolen their wealth from honest Germans; the murder of the Jews by propaganda that they were murderers of Germans; the war on the Jews by the claim that the Jews had declared war on Ger many; and so on.

The language used by Malema “White People,” “ they,” “ them” combines all white individuals , the young and old, the long - dead and the yet to be born into a single group. Highly negative attributes murder, criminality, genocide, viewing black people as “ animals” are then ascribed to each member of this entity. This is done by taking crimes committed or allegedly committed by members of this group recently or hundreds of years ago and then attributing guilt to the group as a whole. The suggestion is then made that “White People” deserve to be punished, but because of the great powers of patience and forgiveness of “ Black People” they have not yet been. However, if “ they” continue with their crimes and “ racism” against Black People, and refuse to return that which they stole, all bets are off the table."

Now, Mr Malema, I am giving you your speech, and I am showing you the . . . [ indistinct] of it and I am pointing out the tactic that you have used. And at the heart of this tactic something deeply sinister and deeply antithetical to the value of non-racialism a value which is built into our Constitution in section 1 of our constitution it says South Africa is a nation founded on the value of non-racialism. The idea that we judge people on the content of their character not the colour of their skin. And what you do is you try and attribute guilt through groups. So instead of judging someone as an individual, what you do is you allocate blame to a group merely because they share the same melanin count, the same skin tone as other people. That they happen to look like other people.

So, you want to hold modern white South Africans liable for crimes committed by people hundreds of years ago who happen to look like them. And that is the sickness, that is the danger that you are doing. it is that you are tryi ng to describe a whole group of people as criminals, murderers, land thieves, without any evidence that any of those individuals have committed those crimes. And that is antithetical to building a nation founded on the values of reconciliation and it is divisive, and it is racist.

MR MALEMA: You gave me a long speech. I do not know what is the question, M’ Lord. He is addressing a political rally of some sort.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Mr Malema, is it the case . . . [ intervenes]

MR MALEMA: What is your question?

MR OPPENHEIMER: I asked you a very simple question. Is it the case that you hold white people as a group liable for the sins of their father?

MR MALEMA: Yes. Yes, that is correct.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Now, I am putting it to you that that is racist. That if individual black people were held ac countable for the sins of other people who happen to share their melanin counts there are black people that you will accept have committed the crimes of murder theft. So it would be improper to make a claim that all black people are murderers, thieves, and rapists. That will be racist to do so. Do you accept that?

MR MALEMA: My brother, when the white people came here and took our land they did not come and take our land as an individual. They took it as settlers and then took us to a land that is not even productive and made us to stay like sardines in congested environment with no economic opportunities. it is white people who must be ashamed of what they have done to us. You cannot turn tables now and want to blame me for the crimes committed by white people. it is a white regime that killed children in 1976, it is the white regime that killed children in the ' 80s and in the early ‘90s.

It is white people who engaged in the wars of dispossession. And forcefully took our land and our cows. Why can you not take responsibility? Why can you not for once just say sorry for the crimes you have committed again you? Why do you want to become victims? When we are the biggest victims here? When we have lost everything.

When we, as black people, remain a traumatised nation? A nation that does not know what the future holds for them. At least you are guaranteed a future. At least you know if it does not work for you here you can go somewhere else.

We have nowhere to go. And then you come here and want to accuse me, a victim of racism of being a racist. it is a huge insult, not only to me but to black people. Madiba coerced us into reconciling with people we have never been one with. That was a myth. it is unrealistic. You cannot reconcile if you have never been together. You never came here with an intention to be with us. You came here with an intention to concur with us, and we remain concurred . . . [ intervenes]

MR OPPENHEIMER: You seem here is the problem I have. You are using this term “you” and this is detached from reality. You want to say that you, me, white people ... [ intervenes]

MR MALEMA: You.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Are the same as people from 1652 , from 350 years ago.

MR MALEMA: You are the same.

MR OPPENHEIMER: You want to say it is the same?

MR MALEMA: You are the same. You are the same.

***

EXTRACT TWO:

MR OPPENHEIMER: So, here is the difficulty I have with your position. You want to make a broad claim white people are racists except for, of course, all the white people who are not racists. White people are land thieves except for who have not stolen any land. Is that what you are saying?

MR MALEMA: White people stole our land.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Which white people?

MR MALEMA: White people who came and settled here.

MR OPPENHEIMER: 350 years ago?

MR MALEMA: Yes.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Do you think white people now are land thieves?

MR MALEMA: When yes. They remain land thieves.

MR OPPENHEIMER: They remain land thieves?

MR MALEMA: Yes.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Now you see . . . [ intervenes]

MR MALEMA: The land has not been returned into the hands of the rightful owners. For as long as you are in possession of a stolen car you remain a criminal.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Let us use that analogy of a car. Now, a simple situation; an individual steals my car. They have a claim against me for the return of that car and I should be punished for the stealing of that car. Imagine that it is the father of the individual who stole the car. And I now pursue the son. You might say, well there is a very close link here. You have got the car it is in your possession. You should return the car. But your case is not like that. Your case is to go back 350 years ago and to say someone who lo oks like your grandfather, great, great, great, great grandfather stole land from someone who looks like my great , great, great, great grandfather. And, therefore, you today must pay it back . . . [ intervenes]

COURT: But mister . . . [ intervenes]

MR OPPENHEIMER: Now I put it to you that, that is not an ordinary sense of justice.

MR MALEMA: But who pays reparative . . . [ intervenes]

MR OPPENHEIMER: Just hold on.

COURT: Yes?

MR KA- SIBOTO: Your Lordship if we are going to refuse legal argument as a proposition to a client then I think it is only fair that there be a balance. So, my learned f r iend must take the argument further if he says if the father steals the car and gives it to his son, technically speaking the father is a criminal. But as a matter of fact, the son himself is a criminal in possession of stolen property. So if he is going to make it in the argument, he must take it to its national conclusion. Because it has an implication of what my client is suggesting. That if you remain in possession of stolen land, albeit that you did not steal it you remain a criminal albeit perhaps in a different form. And that is the proposition he is making.

MR OPPENHEIMER: My learned friend appears to be testifying on behalf of the witness as to what his response would be. I am just pointing out to you, very simply that what you are trying to do is attribute guilt across lines over 350 years regardless of whether a particular piece of land was once dispossessed.

Your claim is white people cannot be the rightful owners of land in this country regardless of whether they bought the land , whether they are Americans who landed here yesterday. if they are white they are not rightful owners of the land. And your claim is that the rightful owners of the land must be black people regardless of whether they have any particular right to that land . Restitution process in place in South Africa and Mr Roets has given some evidence on how that restitution process works. it is very simple.

The Constitution says after 1913 if you can show that you were disposed then you must either receive the land back or you must receive restitution in other words in the form of financial compensation and that process has been undergone. You are calling for something much more radical, in other words, instead of looking at the individua l car we can say

COURT: Mr Oppenheimer, please put the question to the witness and let the witness respond . . . [ intervenes]

MR MALEMA: Ja.

COURT: Otherwise you are going to be here until next year.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Yes. Simple, simple question to you. Is how do you justify holding someone today liable for crimes committed by someone else 350 years ago?

MR MALEMA: There is saying . . . [ speaking in vernacular], I do not know how to say it in English. There will be an interpreter, you cannot take a stolen car from your father and claim you are not a criminal. It remains a stolen car . . . [ intervenes]

COURT: Let us give counsel an opportunity and I will give it a shot. What he is saying is that the children will be punished for the sins of their parents.

MR MALEMA: Yes. So when you steal a car and you pass over the car to, the stolen car to your children it makes that child a criminal as well because he is in possession of stolen goods. And that child passes that car or does not even pass that car he sells that car to go and buy another car with the money of stolen goods. it remains stolen goods. The property you bought with the money stolen, I mean got from stolen goods. You are in possession of stolen property. Return it, please. Your parents have left you a very bad name.

***

EXTRACT THREE:

MR OPPENHEIMER: Mr Malema you described the EFF as an organisation, you described it as a Marxist- Leninist Fanonist Organisation. Is that correct?

MR MALEMA: Yes.

MR OPPENHEIMER: I have got a copy of Wretched of the Earth by Fans Fanon. I would like just to read you an extract from it . Just get your comment.

“In its bare reality, decolonisation reeks of red- hot cannonballs and bloody knives. For the last can be the first only after a murderous and decisive confrontation between the two protagonists. This determination to have the last move up to the front, to have them clamber up too quickly, say some the famous echelons of an organized society, can only succeed by resorting to every means, including, of course, violence.

You do not disorganize a society, however primitive it may be, with such an agenda if you are not determined from the very start to smash every obstacle encountered. The colonised, who have made up their mind to make such an agenda into a driving force, have been prepared for violence from time immemorial. As soon as they are born it is obvious to them that their cramped world, riddled with taboos, can only be challenged by out and out violence.”

COURT: What page is that?

MR OPPENHEIMER: Is it , M’ Lord it is from the book the Wretched of Earth . I will provide a copy of that extract to Your Lordship I have quoted it onto Case Lines.

COURT: Okay. But you can give me the copy, I do have a copy.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Yes. We could arrange one.

COURT: Okay. Thanks.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Now if I understand the thrust of Fanon is saying it is that a decolonisation process requires violence. Is that correct?

MR MALEMA: Yes.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Now, would you embrace violence as a process to decolonise South Africa?

MR MALEMA: Colonisation is violent. it is like racism. And the only to deal with violence you must be violent. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in engaging in a revolution and one to be suggesting that you cannot be engaged in violence. Revolution itself is violence.

MR OPPENHEIMER: And you describe yourself as a revolutionary militant party. Is that correct?

MR MALEMA: Very radical and militant.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Radical and militant.

MR MALEMA: Yes.

MR OPPENHEIMER: And so, and you would be happy to then endorse the use of violence for your revolutionary aims?

MR MALEMA: M’ Lord, when the time comes and the conditions on the ground necessitate that arms must be taken, we will do so without hesitation. Our forefathers did that. And we will not hesitate to repeat because we have not achieved that which they fought for. But we are prepared like we are doing now, engaging in a peaceful means.

***

EXTRACT FOUR:

MR OPPENHEIMER: You testified earlier that when Chris

Hani was killed, that, and you can clarify if I am not saying this correctly. That you wanted to kill them after they killed Chris Hani. Who does that refer to?

10 MR MALEMA: We are very angry. We are ready to kill.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Kill who?

MR MALEMA: We are waiting for the leadership to just give an instruction. And all corners of South Africa we are going to engage in a revolution. And perhaps that could have happened, we would not been sitting here and entertaining racists. Perhaps if we had taken this government through revolutionary means and not negotiated settlement we would not be undermined by small- minded racists who are dragging us to courts here day- in- day- out about revolutionary songs.

But say we must sing this time on our national anthem a song that they were singing when they were torturing our people. A song that they use to sing to celebrate the oppression of our people, they see nothing wrong with it because of this negotiated settlement. Perhaps that should have happened. Maybe you would have respected us. You have no respect for us.

We still have you here. You still have our land. We have a Constitution that we are embracing, all of us. But more celebrated by you because a revolution took place, M’ Lord where the oppressor lost nothing. Where have you ever seen a revolution taking place where the oppressor loses nothing? And the oppressor celebrates the triumph of the revolution. Perhaps Chris Hani’s death should have served as that turning point, we would not be undermined here . . . [ speaking in vernacular]

MR OPPENHEIMER: Let us get some clarity on this. So that violent revolution who would have been the targets of it?

MR MALEMA: it would have been the white oppression. The white system that took our land. The white system that denied us economic opportunities in this country.

MR OPPENHEIMER: The white system or the white people? You said kill them. I am asking if you intended on saying . . . [ intervenes]

MR MALEMA: But I gave you an answer. You either take it or you leave it .

20 MR OPPENHEIMER: Well I am asking you.

MR MALEMA: I said who is the target? I said the white system of segregation and oppression would have been the target.

***

EXTRACT FIVE:

MR OPPENHEIMER: Is it correct to say that you have publicly stated that all white people are criminals and ought to be treated as such?

MR MALEMA: Yes.

MR OPPENHEIMER: What does that mean?

MR MALEMA: The white system has stolen our land and has stolen our cattle and has stolen our minerals and natural resources and all of that must be returned.

MR OPPENHEIMER: So if a person from America who happens to be white arrives in South Africa today, are they are a criminal?

MR MALEMA: Americans are even worse because of their imperialism.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Let us say a white person from Russia

arrives today. Are they a criminal?

20 MR MALEMA: Well, we are talking here about colonialism,

imperialism, and apartheid. Were the Russians re sponsible for that? Russia left the scramble of Africa in 1884 and 1885 without having a portion of African land. So why would I declare Russian people criminals? They did not get anything out of the scramble for Africa. We are talking in the context of

imperialism, colonialism, and apartheid.

MR OPPENHEIMER: So, let us just get this clear then. In other words, a Russian person arrives in South Africa today, who is white, is not a criminal?

MR MALEMA: No.

MR OPPENHEIMER: Okay. Now, and you were saying in other words an American would be a criminal because America is an Imperialist body . . . [ intervenes]

MR MALEMA: Yes.

MR OPPENHEIMER: So why make the claim that white people are criminals and white people must be held accountable as such when you have just said that there is a difference we must go and look at their particular history, their particular lineage. Why just use the blanket term white?

MR MALEMA: You know, I have lit igated with AfriForum and Roets before. And they have never brought someone so weak as you. I think they have done the worst disservice to them, themselves. Let me tell you, every time we say white settlers, white people, white settlers in South Africa it is in that context.

So why would an American who came yesterday, M’ Lord, be a settler? We are talking here about white settlers. Why would a Russian who came here be a settler?

MR OPPENHEIMER: Is there, is there . . . [ intervenes]

MR MALEMA: You understand very well the context within which we say all white people are racist. it is in, in relation to

the struggle of liberation in South Africa against apartheid system that benefited all white people.

MR OPPENHEIMER: So, who is a white settler?

MR MALEMA: All those who came here to some and concur South Africa and take the land from our people . . . [ intervenes]

MR OPPENHEIMER: When?

MR MALEMA: Are white settlers.

MR OPPENHEIMER: When?

MR MALEMA: From since 1652 .

MR OPPENHEIMER: Up until when?

MR MALEMA: Up until we took our freedom.

MR OPPENHEIMER: So, up until?

MR MALEMA: Political freedom in 1994 .

MR OPPENHEIMER: So let us just get that sense ; in other words, anyone who is white who is either born in South Africa after 94 or who arrived after 94 is not . . . [ intervenes]

MR MALEMA: Who?

MR OPPENHEIMER: Anyone who is white, who arrived in South Africa after 1994 are they a white settler?

MR MALEMA: Anyone who arrives in South Africa to inherit the stolen property is a criminal.

MR OPPENHEIMER: I am asking a simple question. You said to me . . . [ intervenes]

MR MALEMA: I am giving you a simple answer.

MR OPPENHEIMER: You said to me that you understand white settler is anyone from 1652 up until the time of political power, is that 1994 ?