Washington, D.C – May 12, 2025 - The Liberty Values & Strategy Foundation issues this statement in response to the recent Constitutional Court decision regarding the "Kill the Boer" chant litigation, originally brought by AfriForum against the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and Julius Malema.

While AfriForum’s initiative has brought critical attention to the intersection of hate speech, minority rights, and political expression in South Africa, the Foundation supports the underlying intent: to ensure that the dignity and safety of all citizens, especially vulnerable minorities, are protected under the law. AfriForum’s litigation has highlighted the real fears and lived experiences of farming communities, and the Foundation affirms the necessity of vigilance in upholding constitutional values and the principle of equality before the law.

However, the Foundation stresses that the legal tables are not turned yet.

1. No Substantive Dismissal-Just Procedural Finality:
   Contrary to some interpretations, the Constitutional Court has not issued a substantive dismissal of AfriForum’s appeal. Instead, it has stated there are no further steps in this matter, and as such, the judges will not hear any arguments by the appellant. This marks the end of the judicial avenue for this specific litigation, but not the end of the legal story.

2. Law Is Not Static-Precedent Can Shift:
   The nature of law is dynamic. As demonstrated by the reversal of major precedents such as Roe vs. Wade in the United States, legal doctrine is always subject to reinterpretation in light of new facts, evolving societal context, or shifts in judicial philosophy. Today, there may be no further legal mechanisms to challenge the "Kill the Boer" chant under the current facts and context. Yet, the courts themselves have left the door open: if new evidence emerges-such as a direct link between the chant and violence, or if the context of its use shifts (for example, being chanted during a period of heightened racial unrest or farm attacks)-the matter could be brought before the courts anew. The 2022 Equality Court judgment explicitly noted this possibility, and the Supreme Court of Appeal’s 2024 decision was context-specific, not absolute.

3. Precedent Is Not Ironclad-Circumstances Matter:
   The legal status of the chant has already shifted over time: it was banned as hate speech in 2011, then unbanned in 2022. The law’s application hinges on specific facts and the broader social climate. Should public sentiment shift, political pressure mount, or new incidents arise, a future court could reassess both the intent and impact of the chant differently. As history has shown, precedent can and does yield to compelling new realities.

4. Court Rulings Are Circumstantial-The Law Is a Living Beast:
   The Foundation underscores that all court rulings in this matter have hinged on the specific circumstances of the cases before them. The law is not a fossil; it evolves with society’s pulse. If the chant is ever wielded in a manner that is "offensive and undermining"-for instance, at a riot instead of a rally, or during a surge in violence-the courts have signaled they could rule differently. The wild card remains: as circumstances evolve, so too can the legal interpretation.

Conclusion

The Liberty Values & Strategy Foundation calls on all South Africans-citizens, lawmakers, and the judiciary-to recognize that the legal closure in this case is not the end of the conversation. The Foundation supports AfriForum’s intent to safeguard the dignity and rights of minorities, and will continue to advocate for a legal system that responds rigorously and fairly to changing realities. The law’s living nature demands ongoing vigilance and principled engagement.