The criminal complaint brought against former radio host Ngizwe Mchunu for his anti-LGBTQIA+ statements and actions has been closed by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).
Furious LGBTQIA+ advocates say the move exposes serious weaknesses in how South Africa’s justice system handles hate-related cases affecting queer people.
The case was opened by Johannesburg trans and intersex group The Forge Foundation as a criminal matter running alongside a civil Equality Court case against Mchunu, led by TransHope and others.
State prosecutors have declined to pursue the criminal charges, stating there were stronger prospects of success through civil proceedings.
According to the complainants, the decision was not due to lack of evidence but rather the NPA’s view that the matter belongs in civil court, a conclusion they strongly dispute.
What Sparked the Case
The complaints stem from viral videos in which Mchunu made explicit anti-LGBTQIA+ remarks, including statements that he “hates” gay people and claims that queer men have no right to wear traditional attire. He also targeted media personality Somizi Mhlongo while criticising queer visibility in cultural spaces.
In another clip, he complained about LGBTQIA+ patrons at Kwa Mai Mai, a well-known Johannesburg cultural market, saying the venue was meant for Zulu men and that queer people should “go be gay somewhere else.”
Mchunu then gathered a group of supporters, some wielding beer bottles, sjamboks (leather whips) and knobkerries (Zulu traditional fighting sticks), to accompany him to the venue, where they allegedly sought to confront queer patrons. The mob was ultimately denied entry and was dispersed by the police.
Activists warned that Mchunu’s rhetoric and acts risked inciting confrontation and violence.
Forge Foundation: “We Are Deeply Disappointed”
Responding to the NPA’s decision, Samora Mbambi, Executive Director of the Foundation, said the organisation believes prosecutors acted prematurely by closing the case before it could be tested in court.
“They wouldn’t know whether or not this matter was going to be successful in a criminal court if it was not tested. In order for it to be tested, it needs to be taken to that competent court,” Mbambi said.
She criticised what she described as a presumption by prosecutors that the case lacked prospects of success:
“They made a pre-assumption that this matter will not be successful in a criminal court… without having to actually test the case.”
Mbambi also said the Foundation was never consulted during the decision-making process.
“They did not even bother to call us… to have a three-party discussion between ourselves, our legal representatives, and the investigating officer. That would have assisted them in making that determination before withdrawing it.”
Concerns About Handling of Hate Crime Cases
Mbambi said the outcome is especially troubling given South Africa’s recent strengthening of hate-crime legislation.
“This happens after the President announced the passing of the Hate Crimes Bill… meant to ensure voices of vulnerable groups are heard, and justice is served.”
She argued that the matter contains criminal elements, not just civil ones, including alleged intimidation, incitement, and misuse of digital platforms to promote harm.
“It’s not every hate crime case that deserves to only go to civil proceedings. Some contain criminal elements, and this one did.”
According to her, the evidence was substantial and publicly available:
“It was not a question of whether evidence was there. Evidence was there. Evidence was even public. It was a matter of whether the NPA thought it had prospects of success.”
“Justice System Not Yet Ready”
Mbambi concluded that the decision reflects a broader systemic issue in how the authorities approach queer-related hate complaints.
“We feel like the justice system is not yet fully capacitated to deal with matters of hate crime, particularly when it comes to vulnerable minority groups such as LGBTQIA+ people.”
She added that authorities may need specialised training and capacity-building to handle such cases effectively:
“They need sensitivity training and capacity-building, so they know how to prosecute matters of discrimination and violence perpetrated toward LGBTQIA+ people.”
What Happens Next
Advocacy groups say they are considering further steps and continue to push for accountability through all available legal avenues. Options include appealing the NPA’s decision at a senior level or considering private prosecution.
While the criminal case has for now been closed, civil proceedings related to the same incident are still active through the Equality Court, which already issued an interim order stopping Ngizwe Mchunu from engaging in any anti-LGBTQIA+ activities or speech.
For activists, the issue goes beyond one case; it has become a test of whether South Africa’s justice system can meaningfully respond to hate speech and alleged incitement targeting marginalised communities.
