Former Joburg mayor’s pro-Hamas post ruled hate speech

The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has ruled that former Johannesburg mayor and current Al Jama-ah councillor Thapelo Amad’s inflammatory social media post glorifying Hamas amounts to hate speech, ordering him to issue an unconditional public apology. 

The ruling follows a complaint lodged by Cape Town-based public relations strategist Tim Flack, who accused Amad of spreading hate speech and incitement. Amad, who has not responded to calls and questions from the SA Jewish Report, has so far remained silent on whether he intends to comply. 

In its finding, the SAHRC said Amad’s post, published on X shortly after Hamas’s 7 October 2023 massacre in Israel, crossed the line from political expression into unlawful hate speech. In the post, Amad posed with an assault rifle and a Hamas flag, and declared, “We stand with Hamas, Hamas stands with us, together we are Palestin [sic] and Palestin [sic] will be free. With our souls, with our blood, we will conquer Al-Aqsa.” 

The commission concluded that such rhetoric amounted to incitement to violence and concluded, “The statement demonstrates a clear potential to incite harm and promote hatred, particularly in a society still marked by racial tension and inequality”. 

It recommended that Amad publicly apologise on the same platform where the post appeared and was soon after deleted. If he fails to do so, the SAHRC noted, the matter could be referred to the Equality Court, which has the power to issue a legally binding order. 

“This ruling matters because it draws a moral and legal line that should have been obvious: glorifying Hamas isn’t political speech, it’s hate speech,” Flack said. “For me, it’s about restoring the principle that Jewish lives matter in South Africa too. The commission’s finding confirms that public figures cannot hide behind slogans while promoting violence or antisemitism. Justice begins when accountability replaces impunity, and this decision is a step in that direction. I have not yet been informed whether Mr Amad has complied, but his apology will mean little if it’s not matched with genuine remorse. I don’t suspect he will – during mediation there didn’t seem to be any acknowledgement of anything, really. We held a discussion, and he had lawyers with him.” 

Flack, who specialises in intelligence analysis, media influence, and counter-extremism, said the outcome underscores that political figures cannot “wrap extremism in moral rhetoric and expect impunity”. 

Advocate Mark Oppenheimer, a constitutional lawyer and expert on freedom of expression and hate speech, described the ruling as an accurate interpretation of the limits of free speech. 

“In my view, [the SAHRC’s recommendation] correctly identifies Mr Amad’s remarks as unprotected hate speech, given that they amount to a tacit incitement to violence against Jews and Zionists.” 

However, he pointed out that the commission’s recommendations aren’t legally binding. “It properly notes that only the Equality Court can issue a binding order. The recommendation makes it clear that the complainant may pursue further action in that forum. An Equality Court has the power to order an apology, which Mr Amad would then be legally obliged to make. In this case, while it may be prudent for him to apologise, he’s not legally required to do so at this stage.” 

He said the ruling had the advantage of sending a “moral signal”. “Most people read this as condemnation by the commission, and that’s a good thing, which may well set the tone and deter politicians from making statements like this.” 

Milton Shain, emeritus professor of Historical Studies at the University of Cape Town, welcomed the SAHRC’s decision. 

“This is a welcome ruling. Former Johannesburg Mayor Thapelo Amad clearly went too far. Of course, he’s not the only South African to identify with Hamas and its deadly agenda. As former mayor of a multicultural city with diverse views, he should have known better. Perhaps senior ANC members will take heed. One hopes so. Public support and sympathy for Hamas on the part of our leaders have been significant, this despite many countries outlawing the movement and noting its noxious worldview. We now await a public apology from Amad. Let’s see if this puts a dampener on hate-filled language.” 

Wendy Kahn, the national director of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD), has called on the African National Congress (ANC) to sack Amad as a city councillor, saying it’s unconscionable that he continues to serve in public office after endorsing a terror organisation. 

“It’s encouraging that our country’s advanced hate speech legislation protects all South African citizens from hateful rhetoric and threatening language,” she said. “This finding has set a useful precedent which the SAJBD can use for current and future cases to protect South African Jewry from this type of incitement.” 

At the time of Amad posting the tweet, SAJBD National Chairperson Professor Karen Milner said, “This kind of incitement is unacceptable for any South African, but it’s all the more deplorable from a political leader. We call on President Ramaphosa to address this serious issue, and for councillor Amad to be strongly censured for his reprehensible conduct. 

“Amad pledged his allegiance to Hamas only a month after its brutal massacre on 7 October 2023. Not only is it reprehensible that the ANC decided to keep him as a city councillor, it elevated him to the oversight committee of the Johannesburg City Council.” 

The ruling has been widely welcomed across Jewish and civil-rights circles as a small but meaningful victory against rising antisemitism in South Africa. 

For Flack, this case was never about silencing political opinion but about drawing the line between free speech and hate speech. “Accountability replaces impunity when we stop pretending that calling for violence is just political expression,” he said. 

Meanwhile, Amad’s silence, both to the SAHRC’s directive and to repeated requests for comment, speaks volumes. Whether he apologises or not, the ruling stands as a legal and moral rebuke of hate-laden political rhetoric at a time when antisemitism is surging, both online and off.