Malema Finally Apologises to Judge Matojane — Seven Years After R500k Defamation Ruling
By Mpho Dube, Editor-in-Chief
The Azanian | Truth. Fearless. Unfiltered.
Cape Town — EFF leader Julius Malema has formally apologised to Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Keoagile Matojane in Parliament, closing a long-running clash that started with a R500,000 defamation judgment.
The apology was delivered on Tuesday, 30 September, after Speaker Thoko Didiza gave Malema a final deadline to comply with a sanction from Parliament's Powers and Privileges Committee.
The matter dates back to 2019, when Matojane, then a High Court judge, ordered the EFF to pay damages to former Finance Minister Trevor Manuel. The EFF had suggested that the appointment of former SARS Commissioner Edward Kieswetter was corrupt.
Two years later, in 2021, Malema — as a member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) — questioned Matojane during a JSC interview for a higher judicial post. He raised the R500,000 damages award, a move Parliament later ruled was retaliation and a breach of the code of ethical conduct.
Malema challenged the finding in court and lost. The Committee ordered him to apologise in the House to both Matojane and the JSC.
After failing to deliver the apology earlier this year, Didiza instructed him to do so by 30 September.
Before the apology, Didiza explained the sanction to the House:
"That the member enter an apology in the house by specifically apologising to Judge Matojane and the Judicial Service Commission for his question to Judge Matojane during the interview process that related to the quantum of R500,000 in damages."
Malema delivered his apology using a Sepedi proverb:
"When a person errs, they should not be punished too harshly or destroyed but rather corrected with love and guidance."
He was not the only EFF MP to apologise on the day. EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo also apologised to DA MP Kevin Mileham following a complaint of assault outside the parliamentary dome on Budget Day in February.
The apology draws a line under one of the most tense moments between the EFF and the judiciary — a reminder that even robust political debate in the JSC interview room has ethical limits.
Comments