Mkhwebane’s racial remarks draw attention of SAHRC, while EFF’s Thambo defends her

Important individuals, primarily of Indian heritage, have continuously participated in my ongoing conflict and have framed themselves as my persecutors. Pravin Gordhan, the evidence leader Bawa, the main legal adviser of Parliament Adhikarie, the alleged expert witness Hassan Ebrahim, the person who testified Ivan Pillay, and the legal counsel of Parliament Fatima Ebrahim are some of these people. She posted, “Judge Poonan’s (sic) attitude further highlights the obstacles and prejudices I have encountered in my pursuit of justice.” “My appeal’s rejection by the SCA is a major blow for everyone who trusted me to uphold transparency and public rights, not just for me personally. I have been really disappointed and frustrated by this experience, which has exposed a firmly rooted prejudice that still stands in the way of true justice.

In the Section 194 investigation, which concluded that Mkhwebane was incompetent and had misbehaved in her role as Public Protector, Advocate Nazreen Bawa SC led the proof. Fatima Ebrahim of Parliament’s legal services provided advice to the Section 194 Committee, while Advocate Zuraya Adhikarie serves as Parliament’s chief legal adviser.

Mkhwebane apologized for her comments on Thursday night during Clement Manyathela’s Face the Nation broadcast on SABC, saying she didn’t intend to give the impression that she was disparaging Indians. Her postings are still active on X as of this writing.

While the DA stated that it will be in compliance with the Ethics Committee of Parliament and the FF Plus with the Powers and Privileges Committee, the judiciary and Parliament denounced Mkhwebane’s comments. If Mkhwebane didn’t apologize to the country and take back her comments, the ANC stated it would support an appeal to the ethics committee and it would approach the SAHRC. The SAHRC indicated that it would “like emphasize to individuals that although the legal system is not above criticism, such critiques must be within the ambit of the law” .

Furthermore, the Constitution’s section 16 right to free speech must be used while taking into account both the internal constraints on that right and the rights of others. Accordingly, while everyone has a fundamental right to free speech under section 16 (1) of the Constitution, this right should not be extended to encouragement to harm through the promotion of hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender, or religion, as is the case with some social networking posts.