SA court rules against Ngizwe Mchunu over anti‑LGBTQIA+ hate speech

The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has welcomed a landmark Equality Court ruling against controversial media personality Ngizwe Mchunu, after the Johannesburg High Court found him guilty of hate speech, harassment and unfair discrimination targeting LGBTQIA+ persons.


In a statement issued on 19 June 2026, the Commission described the judgment as a major victory for human rights, dignity and constitutional democracy in South Africa.

The case was brought by the SAHRC together with TransHope and the Hate Crimes Working Group, represented by Lawyers for Human Rights. According to the Commission, the matter stemmed from statements, videos and a flyer allegedly published by Mchunu between 30 September and 6 October 2025, which targeted members of the LGBTQIA+ community.

Sitting as an Equality Court, the Johannesburg High Court ruled that Mchunu’s conduct violated sections 6, 10 and 11 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act of 2000. The court found that the material he published amounted to hate speech, harassment and unfair discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Intersex and Asexual/Aromantic persons.

The ruling also addressed a march led by Mchunu to the Kwa Mai Mai Traditional Market on 5 October 2025, which the court found constituted harassment and unfair discrimination.

Before approaching the courts, the SAHRC said it had attempted to resolve the matter directly with Mchunu, demanding that he stop publishing discriminatory content, remove offensive material from his social media platforms within 24 hours and issue a public apology. The Commission said Mchunu rejected the demands and publicly maintained his position.

Following the ruling, the court imposed a series of strict remedies. Mchunu was permanently barred from publishing or distributing content that discriminates against LGBTQIA+ persons and prohibited from organising or participating in demonstrations promoting discrimination. He was ordered to publish an unconditional public apology pinned to his Facebook page for three months.

The court further directed him to pay R250,000 to organisations promoting equality, social cohesion and the prevention of hate crimes. He must also undergo 20 hours of human rights sensitisation training, supervised by the SAHRC or another approved institution, and pay the complainants’ legal costs.

In its statement, the SAHRC said the ruling reaffirmed that discriminatory conduct and hate speech would not be tolerated in South Africa’s constitutional democracy.

“The judgment underscores the centrality of dignity, equality and freedom from discrimination as foundational constitutional values,” the Commission said.

It also praised the court for adopting what it described as both corrective and restorative measures.

“The Commission is particularly encouraged by the Court’s use of both corrective and restorative remedies, including public apology and human rights education. This approach contributes not only to accountability but also to transformation and social cohesion,” the statement added.

The ruling is expected to stand as one of South Africa’s most significant recent Equality Court decisions involving hate speech and LGBTQIA+ rights, and is already being widely discussed across regional human‑rights platforms such as Southern Africa equality jurisprudence.