During a routine briefing to supporters, Gayton McKenzie flatly rejected any need to apologise for what he calls fabricated racism accusations. He insisted the controversial posts circulating online were not his own statements but excerpts of other people's remarks that he was merely quoting. "I have not said racist things," he said, "and I will explain everything that was said there."
McKenzie claims the social‑media snapshots have been cherry‑picked to paint him as a bigot. According to him, a full context review would reveal he was responding to, rather than endorsing, the offensive language. He added that his legal team is already drafting a defence, and that he is prepared to let the Constitutional Court decide the matter.
The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) says there is prima facie evidence that the minister may have breached the Equality Act. The commission’s preliminary finding triggered a formal investigation, and it has reached out to McKenzie's office for comment. Lawyers for Human Rights have also sent correspondence, offering McKenzie the chance to defend himself publicly.
Opposition parties wasted no time. ActionSA lodged a formal complaint with the SAHRC, demanding an immediate inquiry. The Democratic Alliance’s John Steenhuisen called for swift action against the minister, while the Economic Freedom Fighters labelled him hypocritical for denouncing racism while allegedly making racial slurs himself.
Despite the mounting pressure, McKenzie says he will not step down. He argues that the accusations are part of a broader political campaign to undermine his reputation and the Patriotic Alliance’s standing. "The attacks are politically motivated," he told his followers, adding that he will stay in his ministerial post until the courts say otherwise.
Legal experts note that the Equality Act is a powerful tool against hate speech, but it also protects free expression when context is considered. Should the case reach the Constitutional Court, the judgment could set a precedent for how political figures’ social‑media activity is judged in South Africa.For now, McKenzie remains defiant, insisting that the investigation will clear his name and that any decision to remove him must come through due process, not public outcry alone.