THE EFF has lambasted the judgment by the Supreme Court of Appeals (SCA) and likened it to apartheid laws.
This after SCA upheld the Gauteng High Court's decision preventing the party from initiating land occupation.
EFF spokesman Sinawo Tambo said the ruling made it clear how the courts were captured by the white establishment.
He said the party would continue to call on its members, urging them to identify and occupy land because it was rooted in the cardinal pillar of the EFF and it was a principle that they could not forsake.
“This verdict embodies the oppressive nature of apartheid draconian laws that sanctioned the theft of our ancestral lands. The SCA upheld the ruling that should the EFF continue to advocate for the invasion and occupation of land, it would be considered a serious crime.
"Astonishingly, even in the era of democracy, we witness the courts criminalising the yearning for rightful land ownership, deeming land occupation illegal and branding it a criminal offense within our nation. AfriForum's pursuit of this interdict is marred by frivolous motives rooted in white supremacist, racist, and anti-black ideologies,” he said.
ALSO READ| North West has a 'NEW' premier!
He said the court created fertile ground for white supremacist, anti-black extremists such as AfriForum to collude with trigger-happy police and security forces.
“This alliance will exploit the situation to inflict merciless violence upon the vulnerable and landless individuals who yearn for nothing more than a plot of land to construct their humble homes,” said Tambo.
On Wednesday, 21 June, the SCA dismissed EFF leader, Julius Malema’s and the party’s appeal against the interdict by AfriForum that prevents Malema from inciting land invasions. Malema and EFF approached both the high court in Pretoria in January 2023 and the Constitutional Court in March 2023, to have the decision overturned, but failed.
Tambo said his party holds the view that land hunger is similar to the fundamental human need for access to water, a right that cannot be unjustly denied to "our fellow citizens".
“We contend that the application of such laws not only undermines the spirit of our Constitution, but also disregards the explicit provisions enshrined within it. Furthermore, this judgment blatantly contradicts the rich tapestry of historical liberation struggles that have unequivocally recognised the fundamental right of citizens to engage in peaceful protest, including the act of land occupation when conducted in a nonviolent manner,” he said.