When a cabinet minister starts tossing apartheid‑era slurs into his Twitter feed, the backlash is swift and loud. Gayton McKenzie found himself at the centre of a political firestorm after repeatedly using the K‑word in posts that many say dehumanise black South Africans. The uproar prompted ActionSA to take the matter to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), demanding that the minister be held to account for what they describe as a clear breach of the nation’s equality laws.
What triggered the complaint?
ActionSA’s grievance stems from a series of online messages where McKenzie not only used the notorious racial epithet but also layered his comments with references that harken back to the country’s oppressive past. Critics argue that such language, especially from a public official, goes beyond personal offence—it undermines the constitutional promise of non‑racialism that underpins modern South Africa.
When confronted, McKenzie tried to deflect the criticism by pointing out his own black identity, suggesting that he could not be racist. The defence quickly fell apart as activists and fellow politicians reminded everyone that racism is not a matter of colour but of the content and impact of speech. Under mounting pressure, McKenzie issued an apology, calling his own remarks "insensitive, stupid, and hurtful," but the apology did little to quell the outrage.
The SAHRC confirmed that it has opened an investigation based on ActionSA’s filing. In a preliminary statement the commission made a prima facie finding that McKenzie’s posts likely violate the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (commonly known as the Equality Act). If the final judgment aligns with this initial assessment, the minister could face formal sanctions and possibly a case before the Equality Court.
Political fallout and legal options
Across the political spectrum, parties have seized on the controversy to call for McKenzie’s removal. The Democratic Alliance, the Economic Freedom Fighters, African Transformation Movement, and ActionSA itself have all issued statements demanding that the President act swiftly.
- DA leader John Steenhuisen warned that such language "has no place in South Africa" and stressed the heightened responsibility of leaders to choose their words carefully.
- EFF spokespersons described the remarks as an "offensive reminder of apartheid" and urged the President to dismiss the minister immediately.
- ActionSA reiterated that non‑racialism is a founding principle of the party and that any cabinet member who flouts this value should be held accountable.
Beyond the SAHRC route, ActionSA has made it clear that it is prepared to take the matter to the Equality Court under Section 20 of the Equality Act if the commission’s process stalls or fails to deliver a satisfactory outcome. The party’s legal team says the next steps could involve seeking an interdict to prevent further racist statements and demanding a declaration that the minister’s conduct breaches the Constitution.
The controversy is not limited to McKenzie. ActionSA has also lodged a complaint against Minister Dean Macpherson, accusing him of weaponising racist slurs like "amaphara" and "hobos" against the party’s supporters. Both complaints underscore a growing concern that high‑ranking officials are using inflammatory language as a political tool, a practice that the SAHRC has pledged to scrutinise closely.
For ActionSA, the issue is as much about principle as it is about politics. The party argues that tolerating such behaviour erodes the fragile social contract that keeps South Africa moving forward after decades of institutionalised hate. By pushing the complaints through the proper constitutional channels, ActionSA hopes to set a precedent that no cabinet minister—regardless of their background—can sidestep accountability when they cross the line into hate speech.
The President now faces a decision that could test the resolve of the country’s anti‑racism framework. If he acts decisively, it may signal that the promise of a non‑racial democracy still carries weight. If he hesitates, critics warn that the message to the public—and to future office‑holders—could be that the old rhetoric still finds a safe haven in the corridors of power.