Illustrative Image: EFF leader Julius Malema. (Photo: Fani Mahuntsi /Gallo Images) | Kenny Kunene. (Photo: Sharon Seretlo / Gallo Images) | Money and broken glass. (Image: Istock) | (By Daniella Lee Ming Yesca) Following the striking of Julius Malema’s R1-million defamation case against Patriotic Alliance deputy president Kenny Kunene from the court roll, a series of allegations against the EFF leader remain unresolved. These assertions include late-night visits to a secluded farm, the receipt of an R80,000 cash payment inside a Louis Vuitton bag, and an unusually close relationship with an alleged taxi cartel kingpin.
Malema and Kunene’s legal teams were due to battle it out in the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg on Tuesday, 9 June, but the matter was struck from the roll after Malema’s legal team failed to comply with the court’s directives.
The issue arose when Malema’s lawyers failed to upload certain documents to the online CaseLines system by the April deadline, only filing them on Monday night, hours before the hearing.
As a result, Judge Leonard Twala struck the matter from the roll and ruled that Malema must pay for the costs of Kunene’s legal team.
Before the ruling, advocate Mfesane ka-Siboto, appearing for Malema, asked the court for leniency, arguing that the non-compliance was not intended to defy the court’s directives, but was instead the result of an administrative error on the part of Malema’s legal team.
‘Defamatory statements’
The defamation case relates to comments made by Kunene during an interview with MacG on Podcast and Chill on 20 February.
According to Malema’s court papers, Kunene made 10 defamatory statements during the interview, including claims about his alleged dealings with the late taxi boss and alleged “Big Five” cartel leader Jothan “Mswazi” Msibi and his relationship with businessman and alleged cigarette smuggler Adriano Mazzotti.
Kunene’s statements included:
“Julius would drive at midnight, at two o’clock when that man calls and drive to his farm ... Mswazi.”
“Julius will leave the backroom here of Mazzotti and drive to that man’s house…”
“He lives in the backyard of Mazzotti…”
The EFF leader said these statements suggest that he is associated with criminal conduct through his relationship with Msibi, which has damaged his reputation.
An ordinary listener would understand the remarks to mean that he was effectively under Msibi’s control and engaged in unlawful activity through that association, Malema’s legal team argued.
Malema has denied the allegations and insists that any interaction he had with Msibi related to transport arrangements for EFF rallies and political events.
/file/attachments/2991/WhatsAppImage2026-05-08at112744_302463.jpeg "EFF leader Julius Malema has denied allegations that PA deputy president Kenny Kunene made against him. (Photo: Reitumetse Pilane)")
Two months ago, Malema publicly addressed his relationship with Msibi, conceding that he knew the taxi boss, had met him on several occasions and attended his funeral.
But he rejected suggestions that the relationship involved criminal activity or financial dealings.
“I knew the old man through Ze [Nxumalo] when they were engaged in a strike here in Johannesburg. I can’t remember which year,” said Malema.
He denied ever taking money to Msibi, insisting their interactions centred on transport issues.
“I never went to Msibi with money. I went to Msibi from time to time to talk to him about taxis reducing their prices. We never spoke about any crime.”
Documentary evidence
Kunene submitted witness statements and documentary evidence that he says support the substance of his claims.
Perhaps the most shocking statement comes from Tshepo Molekoa, a man who claims he worked, cooked and lived with Msibi at his Dinokeng property, Uvivi Lodge.
According to Kunene’s court papers, Molekoa says he saw Malema at the farm on at least seven occasions. He said some visits took place during the day, while others occurred late at night or in the early hours of the morning.
“Mr Molekoa personally overheard [Msibi] initiate late-night telephone calls directing the applicant to travel to the farm, that the applicant would comply willingly, and that he would navigate the remote gravel roads to arrive at the heavily armed gates in the dead of night or the very early hours of the morning.”
Molekoa also makes allegations concerning cash that Kunene’s legal team says demonstrate the closeness of the relationship.
“Mr Molekoa personally counted R80,000 in cash drawn from a black Louis Vuitton bag brought by the applicant [Malema].”
The court papers do not allege that the money was the proceeds of crime or connected to any unlawful conduct. Rather, Kunene relies on the allegation as evidence of what he describes as a close and ongoing relationship between Malema and Msibi.
Kunene’s legal team argues that Molekoa’s account is corroborated by another witness identified only as Witness A, who also claims to have seen Malema at Uvivi Lodge on multiple occasions.
According to the papers, Witness A says he observed Malema at the property at least five times and claims cellphone tower data could verify Malema’s travel to the Dinokeng area during 2023 and early 2024.
The witness requested anonymity due to alleged fears for his safety.
Kunene’s lawyers say the witness fears retaliation linked to individuals associated with the “Big Five” cartel and violence against witnesses connected to the Madlanga Commission.
Malema questions witnesses’ credibility
Malema’s legal team has fiercely challenged the credibility of both witnesses.
His lawyers argue that neither witness has produced employment records, photographs or other independent evidence proving they occupied the positions they claim to have held within Msibi’s circle.
“The witness statements cannot be considered to be independent, as both affidavits appear to be a copy and paste from the other.
“There are no employment contracts to show that they did indeed work for Mr Msibi, no photographs to show that they lived and worked on the farm and that they were as close to Mr Msibi as they claim.”
Malema’s legal team has gone further, questioning whether the witnesses actually exist.
/file/attachments/2987/ED_584896_278405.jpg "PA deputy president and Johannesburg MMC Kenny Kunene has defended his comments against EFF leader Julius Malema. (Photo: Luba Lesolle / Gallo Images)")
On the second claim by Kunene that Malema lived in Mazzotti’s “backroom”, which Malema has rejected, Kunene’s legal team argued that the underlying facts were not in dispute.
According to the papers, Malema admitted that his wife rented a home within a cluster of four houses that included Mazzotti’s residence.
The defence argued that the disagreement was ultimately about how the arrangement was described rather than whether it existed.
“The dispute is therefore not about whether the underlying fact exists. It does, by admission. The dispute is about the register of its description.”
‘A holy cow’
The case also involves other comments made by Kunene, including claims that Malema portrayed himself as a “holy cow”, only spoke when it suited “the narrative of the day”, envied white people and had falsely claimed sole credit for founding the EFF.
Kunene argued that these remarks amounted to political commentary and opinion rather than factual allegations.
While the court has yet to hear the merits of the matter, Kunene welcomed the ruling, describing it as a victory for freedom of expression.
“I think the judge and the court have made it clear that they are in charge, and not Julius Malema, who, in my view, is misusing the justice system in an attempt to suppress freedom of expression. He goes on to insult the young and the old, insults the wives of politicians, body-shames women,” Kunene told Daily Maverick on Tuesday.
Malema’s legal team indicated that it intends to re-enrol the matter after taking further instructions. However, the court ordered Malema to pay the costs of the aborted proceedings.
The Malema-Kunene feud is no stranger to the courts. The pair are already locked in separate litigation after the Equality Court, in August 2025, found that Kunene’s repeated references to Malema as a “cockroach” during a 2021 television interview constituted hate speech. Kunene was ordered to apologise, but is still appealing that ruling. DM