The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has ruled that the latest chapter in the legal dispute between Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema and social commentator Ngizwe Mchunu will require oral testimony, signalling that the matter has become too complex to determine through affidavits alone.
At the centre of the case is whether Mchunu violated previous court orders that prohibited him from making defamatory statements about Malema. The court found that key aspects of the dispute, particularly comments made during an isiZulu interview, cannot be properly evaluated without hearing evidence directly from those involved.
Malema argues that Mchunu deliberately ignored the court’s directives by repeating allegations that had already been declared unlawful. He is seeking a six-month prison sentence, contending that repeated breaches of court orders undermine both the judiciary and the rule of law.
The dispute follows several urgent applications brought by Malema over recent months after Mchunu publicly accused him of involvement in corruption and criminal activities. Those allegations formed the basis of earlier court rulings that barred Mchunu from repeating the claims.
Although Mchunu later issued a public apology acknowledging the court’s authority, Malema maintains that the apology was rendered meaningless when Mchunu allegedly reaffirmed his views during a subsequent television interview.
Mchunu rejects that interpretation. He insists the interview has been selectively quoted and argues that the full isiZulu conversation does not amount to defamation or contempt of court. According to his legal position, the complete context should be considered before any conclusions are drawn.
The court has instructed both parties to disclose the witnesses they intend calling by 3 August, after which a hearing date for oral evidence can be arranged.
In a separate development, Mchunu has lodged a counterclaim alleging that Malema himself defamed him during an incident in 2024. That matter remains pending and will be heard independently of the current contempt proceedings.