K-WORD: Private conversation is no shield for racist language such as the k-word, SCA rules

Racist language does not become acceptable because it is spoken in private, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has ruled, finding that the circumstances of a conversation do not change the inherently racist and hateful character of the k-word.  

In a judgment on Wednesday, 7 October 2026, the court dismissed an appeal by businessman Willem Hendrik Ackerman, upholding a finding that his repeated use of the k-word in conversations with another white man amounted to unlawful hate speech.

The judgment relates to three communications made by Ackerman between January 2018 and October 2021 and dealt with whether the statements constituted hate speech under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, as well as whether Ackerman could rely on his constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of expression.

Ackerman, a white South African, was a former client of Caleo Capital, an investment management business owned by Emmanuel Amaning, a black African, and Garth Wellman, a white South African.

The business provided investment management services to Ackerman from 2008 until 2022.

In January 2018, while Ackerman and Wellman were discussing Ackerman’s investment portfolio, Ackerman referred to black people running the country using the k-word. 

The words that landed Ackerman in court

On 3 October that year, while discussing Nicholas Liebmann, a white South African of Jewish descent and another Caleo partner, Ackerman referred to him as “that f***ing Jew who only wants to enrich himself in every deal”.

Then, on 23 August 2019, Ackerman sent Wellman a WhatsApp message following a robbery at his home.

The message read: “Garth, after today I might be seen as a racist, but I will man alone kill every k****r that cross my path. So God help me.” 

That statement, the court found, expresses “homicidal contempt”, and “it is not limited to the perpetrators of the robbery, and is framed in a manner that unequivocally indicates that the scope of the invective extends far beyond them.” 

The robbery had taken place earlier that day in the presence of Ackerman’s wife, daughter and domestic worker.

Wellman said he had contacted Ackerman to offer his support. On the following day, the two exchanged further messages and telephone calls, with Wellman advising Ackerman to avoid posting messages about the robbery on social media.

Wellman and Liebmann subsequently discussed their concerns about Ackerman’s racist views and the possible impact of his relationship with Caleo on the company’s culture. 

It did not end there. In October 2021, Wellman called Ackerman to discuss the potential impact of a National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa strike on Ackerman’s business.

During the conversation, Ackerman said: “my k*****s know their place”.

The three communications formed the basis of the hate speech, which then prompted Amaning, Wellman and Liebmann to approach the Equality Court in 2023.   

When does a private conversation stop being private?

Ackerman initially disputed the allegations and challenged the reliability of the electronic communications, particularly the 2019 WhatsApp message. He also argued that the communications were private and therefore protected by the constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of expression.

Ackerman further testified that he had used the k-word in the 2019 message as a religious term referring to a non-believer rather than as a racial slur. The Equality Court rejected these defences and found that the three communications amounted to hate speech against black people, including Amaning.

“It also found that the statements caused harassment to Mr Wellman. This is because by virtue of the statements, Mr Wellman was invited to participate, agree with and enjoy the content of the impugned communications,” reads the judgment. 

The Equality Court had at the time ordered Ackerman to pay R500,000 to the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation, make a public apology to Amaning and Wellman, undergo 50 hours of racial sensitisation training and pay their legal costs on an attorney-and-client scale. 

However, Ackerman appealed to the SCA against the decision. 

The k-word ‘inescapably’ carries racist meaning

In a unanimous judgment, Judge of Appeal Nambitha Dambuza said the case concerned whether the statements constituted hate speech and whether the remedies imposed by the Equality Court were appropriate.

The court said hate speech involved communication based on a prohibited ground that could reasonably be construed as demonstrating a clear intention to be harmful or to incite harm and to promote or propagate hatred.

It also considered previous court findings about the meaning of the k-word. The SCA said South African courts had described the k-word as carrying “inescapably racist” and derogatory connotations.

It said the word was ordinarily harmful or incited harm, promoted hatred and was dehumanising.

“Generally, the k-word immediately constitutes hate speech,” the court said, subject to circumstances where the context clearly indicated otherwise.

The court found that Ackerman’s use of the word in the three communications did not fall within such an exception.

“The hateful, racially discriminatory and derogatory character attaches to the k-word and the target group regardless of who is present in the room,” Dambuza said.

The court also rejected Ackerman’s argument that the fact that the communications were between two white men meant they could not amount to hate speech against black people. 

Conversations between white people change nothing

“The identity of the persons or party to whom the k-word or other communication is made has no bearing on whether the k-word ... constitutes hate speech,” the SCA held.

The SCA had to also consider Ackerman’s reliance on the constitutional right to privacy and found that the Equality Court was in fact right when it found that the communications fell outside Ackerman’s “intimate personal sphere” and were therefore subject to the provisions of the Equality Act. 

In upholding the finding, the SCA referred to previous cases dealing with racist language in professional environments, including a Constitutional Court judgment concerning the use of the k-word in the workplace.

The SCA said those principles were equally applicable to communications between business associates.

The court also rejected Ackerman’s explanation that his use of the k-word referred to an Arabic religious term for a non-believer.

It also considered his claim that the 2019 statement had been directed only at the people who had robbed his home.

It also noted inconsistencies in his evidence concerning the spelling of the word.

The SCA ultimately found that Amaning and Wellman had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that Ackerman had made the three statements.

A familiar word in South African equality cases

The Ackerman case comes against the backdrop of several high-profile incidents involving the use of the k-word in South Africa. Former DA MP Renaldo Gouws faced a complaint after an old video in which he used the word resurfaced in 2024. He later apologised and agreed to take part in racial sensitisation programmes.

Former Bosasa executive Angelo Agrizzi also faced legal action after he was recorded using the k-word during a conversation that was later made public. The matter was taken to the Equality Court by the South African Human Rights Commission, with Agrizzi agreeing to pay R200,000, apologise and undertake not to use or promote hate speech.

R500,000 order now takes effect

The SCA said the Equality Court had the power under the Equality Act to order an award to an appropriate organisation, require an unconditional apology and impose special measures to address unfair discrimination, hate speech or harassment.

The SCA dismissed Ackerman’s appeal with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The court confirmed that the Equality Court’s original order, which had been suspended while the appeal was pending, would come into effect following the SCA’s judgment.

Ackerman is therefore required to make the ordered public apology, pay R500,000 to the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation, complete the 50 hours of racial sensitisation training and pay the costs ordered by the Equality Court. DM