Julius Malema, leader of South Africa’s Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), has been officially barred from entering the United Kingdom, following a decision by the UK Home Office which cited his conduct, character, and past statements as “not conducive to the public good.” In the letter dated June 17, the UK stated that Malema’s visa application was denied due to his repeated public support for proscribed organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah and past remarks seen as inciting violence. The Home Office referenced speeches in which Malema vowed to “arm Hamas” and described the group’s October 7 attacks as “legitimate resistance,” as well as past statements in which he refused to rule out “the slaughter of white people.”
The UK government said Malema’s presence could “erode democratic institutions, threaten public safety, and cause disorder,” stressing that his entry would breach immigration rules that ban individuals who glorify terrorism or promote hatred. The decision referenced the UK’s Terrorism Act and noted that denying his visa was “the least intrusive method” of protecting the public, asserting that Malema could still express his views via modern means outside UK territory.
In a swift and fiery response, the EFF condemned the UK’s action as a “politically motivated” and cowardly move to silence dissent. The party claimed that the visa denial was rooted in Malema’s support for Palestine and his criticism of Israel, calling it a “pathetic expression of intolerance.” The EFF said the UK’s labelling of Malema as an extremist was an insult to South Africa’s judiciary, and accused the British government of twisting past court proceedings to paint him as a threat. “This is not only cowardice by the UK but also stifling of democratic debate,” the party said, while slamming what it called Britain’s “imperialist arrogance.”
The EFF also rejected the Home Office’s claim that Malema had been challenged in court to denounce violence, stating that no judge ever requested such a pledge. They accused the UK of conflating a lawyer’s courtroom question with a judicial ruling, calling it evidence of “deep-seated illiteracy” and misinformation. The party maintained that the Constitutional Court of South Africa had already cleared Malema of incitement and defended his controversial remarks as “liberation heritage.”
Follow us on all social media platforms @dailyquery for news and analyses around the globe.
