Police captain wins R80,000 for defamation in fallout after controversial ‘monkey’ remark

A police captain from Makhanda in the Eastern Cape has won R80,000 in damages from the SAPS. This after posters describing her as a “white racist bitch” were distributed within the Joza police station after she had been charged with using an expression that included the word “monkey”, which was later found to constitute unfair discrimination.

In his ruling on the matter, Judge Avinash Govindjee said: “Without delving into detail regarding the racial composition and language preferences of the group that heard the utterance, and as an aside, it may be noted that the innocent expression was itself unfortunate given South Africa’s painful history.

“What may be emphasised is that the innocent expression included both a word that could be construed as a racial slur on its own, as well as a separate allusion to that same word, combined in a metaphor or unfamiliar idiom… A listener could, rightly or wrongly and bearing in mind the vagaries of language, hear a racial undertone, feel demeaned or targeted when hearing the word or conclude that the speaker was ignorant of or insensitive to the possible racial implications.”

While he found that the police had not acted with malice in investigating charges brought against Captain Henrietta du Preez, he ruled that the subsequent distribution of posters in the police stations, with many fixed to Du Preez’s office door, describing her as a racist white bitch constituted defamation for which the SAPS was vicariously liable.

In 2020, Du Preez was the acting Visible Police (Vispol) Support Head at the Joza police station. She conducted a parade in December 2020. In response to a concern raised by one of the officers on parade, she indicated that she was not prepared to take responsibility for crime prevention vehicles, which were under the command of a colleague.

She used the following expression to explain her reasoning: “If you pick up the monkey, you need to feed it… If you take up the problem, you need to sort it out.”

According to evidence presented to the court, she was frustrated by a colleague who had made a habit of leaving her to resolve supply chain issues, and Du Preez stated that she was no longer willing to do so. She testified that her reference to “monkey” was intended to relate to the vehicles in issue. This was the “problem” to be picked up and dealt with by her colleague.

‘Racist expression’

Throughout the court case, Du Preez maintained that her utterance did not refer to people as monkeys. The next day, however, a colleague reported her to the station commander for using a “racist expression”.

According to this report, she said: “I will not worry about that… the captain [who was in charge of the crime prevention vehicles] must worry about his monkeys and I will worry about my monkeys.”

An investigation was conducted, and Du Preez was charged with misconduct, intimidation or victimisation and, secondly, unfair discrimination. She was found guilty only on the charge of unfair discrimination and dismissed in June 2021.

The Safety and Security Sector Bargaining Council, however, reinstated her, and an arbitration award was issued in her favour. She was then moved to the Makhanda Stock Theft Unit.

She then sued the police, claiming that they had acted maliciously by opening false criminal charges against her, as well as initiating disciplinary proceedings.

Describing her disciplinary hearing, Govindjee said: “The disciplinary hearing record reflects that [the presiding officer] engaged at length with [Du Preez] regarding her use of the word ‘monkey’, the alleged offence it had caused and whether [Du Preez] continued to use the innocent expression.”

She was found not guilty of intimidation, but guilty of discrimination, and dismissed. Despite other senior officials proposing that this sanction be changed to two months’ suspension without a salary, her dismissal was confirmed by the provincial commissioner.

According to papers before court, the complainant explained her reaction to the use of the word “monkeys” as follows: “This is not sitting well to me at all, as I never thought in this day in age, in my career, at my work environment a commander can refer to me and other members as monkeys whereas we are human beings. I find it very hard to come to work and face the same commander. I am traumatised physically and emotionally by this incident, but I try to put a brave face and be professional for service delivery to continue until this matter is resolved in a proper manner.”

‘Fantastically egregious’

In analysing the law, Govindjee said: “South Africa’s special sect or brand of racism was so fantastically egregious that it had to be declared a crime against humanity by no less a body than the United Nations itself. And our country, inspired by our impressive democratic credentials, ought to have recorded remarkable progress towards the realisation of our shared constitutional vision of entrenching non-racialism.

“Revelations of our shameful and atrocious past, made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, were so shocking as to induce a strong sense of revulsion against racism in every sensible South African. But to still have some white South Africans address their African compatriots as monkeys, baboons or k****** and impugn their intellectual and leadership capabilities as inherently inferior by reason only of skin colour, suggests the opposite. And does in fact sound a very rude awakening call to all of us.”

The Constitutional Court has, in another matter, remarked that the terms “monkey” and “baboon” are “weapons of gross insult regularly resorted to pulverise whatever racists thought was left of the dignity and self-worth of the African people”.

Govindjee said he could not find any malice in the way the police handled the disciplinary action.

However, in the wake of the complaint filed against Du Preez, posters referring to her as a “white racist bitch” were placed on fences and doors at Joza police station, including the door of her office and on vehicles parked in the backyard of the station.

It was the police’s case that once the posters were noticed, they were removed.

But Govindjee found that the posters were defamatory.

“What the posters imputed to Du Preez was both demeaning and expressly suggestive of the conclusion that she was racist. The statement that a person is a racist on its own carries a meaning that can defame,” he said.

“As the Labour Court has noted, it is hard to conceive ‘of any place or circumstance or country where, if a person is told that he is racist, it will not be experienced by such person as him or her being insulted and abused’.”

Contempt and animosity

He said the posters had exposed her to contempt and animosity and made her less worthy of respect by her colleagues.

“The posters were numerous and displayed in various areas close to where those on duty were situated. Yet those on night shift reported no incidents during their hourly station inspections on the evening of Sunday 2 May 2021. The shift changed at 06h00 on 3 May 2021, also without any incident noted.

“Yet soon thereafter, the court heard, approximately 80 posters, mainly photocopies, were discovered affixed on walls, doors and vehicles at the police station. Considering the facts, this was unlikely to have been the conduct of a member of the public who gained access unlawfully and was permitted to stroll through the station affixing the posters. The probabilities are that one or more SAPS members drafted, copied and affixed the posters while on night duty,” Govindjee continued.

He found that in this case the police officers’ conduct occurred within the confines of the workplace, pertained to an issue that arose during a parade, and that the workplace provided the location, opportunity and, in all probability, the tools to those who caused Du Preez harm.

“This occurred during ‘working hours’… Instead of utilising their time to act in service of the SAPS, to deter harmful conduct and to protect members of society, including fellow colleagues, those involved facilitated harm, despite being best placed to prevent it,” he said.

He added that based on all these factors it was possible for him to make a finding that the SAPS could be held vicariously liable for the conduct of those who put up the posters.

“The published statements contained serious defamatory material, labelling Du Preez a racist and alluding to morally reprehensible conduct. It was clear from Du Preez’s evidence that she was extremely hurt by this, both personally and professionally, and that this has had a lingering effect. There was little evidence on the extent of the publication, in the sense of how many police officers would likely have had sight of the posters, which were plastered all over the police station, or precisely how long it took for the posters to be removed.

“I accept that several people would have observed the posters personally and that verbal republication to those members who arrived at work shortly after the posters had been removed was the natural and probable result considering the manner, location and extent of the original publication. To this extent, there was reputational damage suffered. That said, the actual publication was relatively narrow in its scope, and largely confined to the defendant’s employees, as opposed to the wider public,” Govindjee added.

“Du Preez was a senior officer with a spotless record who was facing disciplinary action at the time of this incident. The aggravating features to be considered include the language used and the plethora of copies that were affixed in places designed to draw attention to all those who entered those areas of the precinct.

‘No proper follow-up probe’

“It is relevant that the incident was either not properly investigated, or at least that there was no proper follow-up to the investigation, and that there has been no formal apology to [Du Preez]. The posters did target other senior personnel, and the average reader would have construed the material accordingly, and with some appreciation that the author(s) were aggrieved colleagues,” he continued.

There have been several rulings by both the Equality Court and the South African Human Rights Commission indicating that the racist use of the word “monkey” constitutes hate speech.

Read more: The science of hate speech – looking at the forensic linguistic evidence that proved Malema guilty

In November 2024, diamond fraud scheme accused Louis Liebenberg was charged in the Equality Court for the repeated use of the K-word, and reference to black people as monkeys.

In 2018, clothing store H&M removed both an advertisement and clothing after public outrage when a hoodie with the slogan “Coolest Monkey in the Jungle” appeared in its shops. In the same year, radio personality Sasha Martinengo lost his job at Hot FM after calling EFF leader Julius Malema a monkey.

The SA Human Rights Commission has indicated previously that words like “monkey” and “baboon” are not neutral in South Africa, but carry historical weight from apartheid, used to dehumanise black people.

In 2017, the late KwaZulu-Natal estate agent Penny Sparrow was fined after referring to black people on a beach as “monkeys”.

Read more: Equal rights continue to be trampled on, says SAHRC report

In 2024, the SA Human Rights Commission opened a probe against a Knysna councillor who referred to a council meeting as a “monkey circus”. A councillor from Cederberg also landed in trouble for using a picture of monkeys on top of a car and one trying to remove a hubcap with the caption: “The EFF strike has started.” And an EFF member was charged by the DA for referring to the coloured community as “monkey faces”. DM