Cape Union Mart, Krawitz ask court to halt defamation

• All photography by Jude Kapeluschnik

The watershed Cape Union Mart case, which may ultimately determine if South Africans can be defamed by false statements for being Zionists or supporting Israel, is finally being heard in the Western Cape High Court. 

Proceedings began on Monday, 15 June, with large crowds demonstrating outside the court. These included supporters of Cape Union Mart, and supporters of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and five individual antizionist protesters named in the case. 

Supporters of Cape Union Mart called for peace in the Middle East, emphasised that believing in Zionism is a constitutional right, and said that boycotts against retailers like Cape Union Mart result in job losses in a country with skyrocketing unemployment. 

PSC supporters chanted slogans like “We don’t want no Zionists here”, “Resistance is justified”, “Boom boom Tel Aviv”, and “Death to Israel”. They called Christian supporters of Cape Union Mart a “rent a crowd”. 

Pastor Thom Thamaga, the founder of Simunye Israel in Cape Town, said, “We are gathering peacefully outside the court because we believe in a South Africa where people are free to express support for Israel, to identify as Zionists, and to participate in public life without fear of intimidation or reputational harm based on falsehoods.” 

The court action concerns ongoing protests outside Cape Union Mart stores and boycott calls since November 2023. 

Cape Union Mart executive chairperson Philip Krawitz is asking the court to interdict the PSC and the other respondents’ defamatory claims, images, and chants during protests. These claims, images, and chants are directed at him, his family, Cape Union Mart, its staff, and its customers. Cape Union Mart further submits that the protests have not complied with the Regulation of Gatherings Act (RGA). 

“For the Cape South African Jewish Board of Deputies [Cape SAJBD], this matter carries significance well beyond the immediate parties,” said Daniel Bloch, executive director of the Cape SAJBD in a statement on 12 June. “It concerns the right of members of our community to live, work, participate in public life, and express their beliefs as proud Jews who openly identify as Zionists, without being subjected to harassment, intimidation, or the circulation of serious unproven allegations.” 

Protesters claim that Krawitz and Cape Union Mart are funding “genocide”, the Israeli army, and the conflict in Gaza, and that they are “killing children”. 

Krawitz and Cape Union Mart categorically state that they have never donated funds to the Israeli army or Israeli government. Cape Union Mart has provided evidence to the court of all corporate social investment-donated funds, all of which are to entities within South Africa. Krawitz has donated funds to Israel for only humanitarian purposes. 

A full bench of three judges, Judith Cloete, Roy Barendse, and Constance Nziweni, is hearing the case. The respondents are the PSC, unidentified protesters, and five named protesters: Maghmuda Ockards, Muhammad Shafiq Gamiet, Mohamed Zain Jeenah, Sherazaad Rahima Sylvester, and Sayed Ridhwaan Mohamed. 

Proceedings began with Senior Counsel Chris Woodrow, representing Cape Union Mart and Krawitz, noting that there has been much noise around the case. However, he emphasised that after putting the heightened emotions and politics aside, it is only defamation and conduct outside of protest laws that need to be examined. 

He submitted that phrases directed at Krawitz and Cape Union Mart are “per se defamatory”. These include chants such as “Boycott Cape Union Mart ‒ They Fund Genocide”, describing Cape Union Mart brand K-Way as “Killers Way”, and posters and chants saying “Philip Krawitz, award-winning baby killer”, “Philip Krawitz supports and funds occupation, colonisation, genocide, forced starvation”, and “Killed by Cape Union Mart”, among others. 

Woodrow said that describing an individual as complicit in a war crime, the killing of babies, and “the crime of crimes, genocide” are serious accusations, and the onus is on the accusers to prove them as the truth. However, these claims have not been proven thus far. He said the protesters are essentially “barking up the wrong tree”, that Krawitz and Cape Union Mart are not responsible in any way for Israel’s conduct, that they are being falsely accused, and that they are the incorrect targets for protest. 

The respondents argue that an interdict from the court would infringe their rights to freedom of expression, political speech, and protest. However, Woodrow emphasised that his clients are not seeking to limit criticism of Israel. They are also not asking the court to “insulate” them from public scrutiny or accountability, as the respondents suggest. Furthermore, the case is not about preventing the respondents from assembling in public spaces, or even from boycotting Cape Union Mart, as long as they do so lawfully. 

Instead, the PSC and the other protesters are being asked to “refrain from making the false claim that the applicants are funding genocide and killing babies”, and comply with the RGA. 

While the PSC leads the campaign against Krawitz and Cape Union Mart, including inviting its thousands of social media followers to attend protests, in court papers it attempts to duck responsibility for the defamatory claims and conduct at these gatherings. 

However, Woodrow asserted that the PSC has legal responsibility for the posters and chants. In addition, “a person who repeats, confirms, or draws attention to defamatory statements, attracts liability”. This also pertains to repeating, adopting, or republishing such statements, for example, on social media. The PSC has repeatedly posted images from the protests, including the slogans, and videos of the chants, on its social media platforms. 

Woodrow said any reasonable person witnessing the protests and chants would conclude that the reputations of Krawitz and Cape Union Mart have been reduced. 

He said there has been no admissible evidence from the PSC and other respondents to justify the truth of the defamatory statements. Instead, there is inadmissible evidence, like hearsay and speculation. “The defamatory statements are justified along the lines of a theory that Zionism is the root of all evil, and that Krawitz is responsible for the conduct of the State of Israel and the war in Gaza because he is ‘enmeshed in local Zionist networks’,” said Woodrow. 

In court papers, Krawitz submits that the PSC’s definition of Zionism – described by the organisation’s Usuf Chikte as a supremacist, eliminationist ideology ‒ is not his definition of Zionism. This is so crucial that Cape Union Mart applied for Chikte’s definition of Zionism to be struck out of the court papers. 

The court has been given extensive details of the humanitarian projects that Cape Union Mart and Krawitz have donated to. Woodrow noted the irony that most of the projects Krawitz has donated to in Israel work towards uplifting Arab Israelis and Palestinians, and fostering peace initiatives. 

The PSC is attempting to link Krawitz’s leadership roles in Israeli organisations Keren Hayesod and the Jewish Agency for Israel to the Israeli army. However, no such links exist. Krawitz’s donations to these organisations have always been project-specific, and none of these funds go to the Israel Defense Forces. 

Woodrow described a range of instances where Krawitz’s right to dignity had been infringed upon, for example, protesters chanting “Philip, Philip, you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide!” and “Philip, Philip, what do you say, how many kids have you killed today?”. Posters have also depicted Krawitz with devil horns and accused him of being part of the “synagogue of Satan”. 

Court papers show that the PSC and the other respondents do not deny that protesters are targeting Cape Union Mart customers, but they refuse to take responsibility for such conduct. 

On 5 August 2025, the parties agreed to an interim court order that interdicted protesters from harassing customers. However, the harassment has continued. For example, on 18 October 2025, protesters chanted to customers, “You support genocide.” 

Woodrow said that Krawitz and Cape Union Mart have attempted to negotiate and engage with the respondents. They have put out factual information refuting the defamatory claims, but the defamation and unlawful conduct have continued. Therefore, a court case is a last resort. The harm to reputation and Krawitz’s dignity are “unquantifiable”, said Woodrow. 

The Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS), a project at the University of the Witwatersrand, then began its submission as a friend of the court. Its representative, Advocate Jatheen Bhima, argued that this is a constitutional case, not a defamation case. He said that speech at a protest is “by its very nature hyperbolic and an expression of outrage”. 

Woodrow had noted at the outset ‒ and returned to this point during his submissions ‒ that CALS intended to argue on the basis that the case engaged hate speech law, whereas Cape Union Mart’s position is that this is a defamation case. He questioned the relevance of CALS’s anticipated submissions on that basis. 

Bloch said in his statement that the Cape SAJBD is concerned that campaigns aimed at damaging South African businesses through the dissemination of unsubstantiated allegations “may include job losses, increased unemployment, and greater economic hardship for ordinary South Africans, while doing little to advance the cause of peace or improve the lives of those affected by war”. 

The national spokesperson of the South African Friends of Israel, Bafana Modise, said in a statement on 15 June that “this case is not simply about one retailer. It is about whether propaganda, misinformation, and intimidation will be permitted to undermine social cohesion and threaten the livelihoods of thousands of South Africans.” 

The case continues today and tomorrow (17 and 18 June).