UK declines Malema visa application due to his ‘extremism'

News24

18-06-2025

The United Kingdom has refused to grant EFF leader Julius Malema a visa due to his support for Hamas and a statement he made about cutting the throat of whiteness.
The UK's Home Office says Malema's future applications are unlikely to succeed unless he changes his stance.
His presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good, said that country's authorities.
The United Kingdom has refused to grant EFF leader Julius Malema a visa due to his 'extremism', which that country said includes his support for Hamas and a call to 'slaughter white people'.
The UK Home Office secretary said Malema's presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good. This is Malema's second unsuccessful attempt to visit the UK.
The UK's Home Office told the firebrand leader that his application for a visit visa to the United Kingdom had been refused and that future applications were unlikely to succeed.
'Any future UK visa applications you make will be considered on their individual merits, however, you are likely to be refused unless the circumstances of your application change,' said the UK Visas and Immigration Decision Making Centre in a letter dated 17 June 2025 and seen by News24.
'In relation to this decision, there is no right of appeal or right to administrative review.'
READ | Malema sees red after UK visa not approved in time to address students at Cambridge University
The Home Office secretary said while Malema has previously held visas to travel to the UK, after reviewing his latest visa application, the authorities noticed his support for Hamas – an organisation which is considered a terrorist group and is forbidden in the UK – and his call for the slaughter of whiteness.
'I note that you have made statements in support of Hamas, an organisation who are proscribed in the United Kingdom. In an address outside the Israeli Embassy on the 23rd of October 2023, days after the October 7th attack on Israel, you stated that when your political party took over following the 2024 South African elections that you were 'going to arm Hamas and make sure Hamas got the necessary equipment to fight for their freedom',' reads the letter.
'During this same address, you state that Hamas had no option but to fight for their freedom. Additionally, in October 2023 you posted on the EFF's X site in relation to the events on October the 7th that there 'is nothing wrong Hamas (sic) did'.
'In April 2024, the EFF, the political party which you lead, posted on X that the 'Palestinian people have the fullest right to take up arms against apartheid Israel, and that the EFF supports the armed struggle of Hamas and Hezbollah'.'
The Home Office also cited an interview Malema did in October 2024, where he argued that the Hamas attack on Israel was a 'legitimate act of resistance', stating that 'Hamas legitimately resisted Israel's occupation of Palestine on that day. It was not an act of war. It is a battle for the freedom of the Palestinians.'
In addition, the Home Office secretary wrote:
I note that you have made statements calling for the slaughter of white people or hinted that it could be an acceptable option in the future.
'In 2016, you said that your political party was 'not calling for the slaughter of white people, at least for now'.
'In February 2022 you appeared at the South African Equality Court after previously calling for the slaughter of white people. During this appearance, the presiding judge requested that you never repeat such words in the future. You responded that: 'I cannot guarantee the future. I am not a prophet. I said that if things don't change, there will be a revolution affecting all of us – and that will include me and black people in suburbs. Those rising up from townships will accuse us of abandoning them in squalor and in poverty. We will all be in serious trouble… It may not be me [calling for the slaughter of white people]. But it could be me. What will necessitate such a thing? I can't guarantee I can't or won't call for the slaughter of white people. But why would I make a pledge to say I definitely won't call for that? I won't do it'.'
The Home Office said Malema went on to post on the EFF's X site, 'When the time comes and the conditions on the grounds necessitate that arms must be taken, we will do so without hesitation.'
'I consider that the above statements, in particular the fact that you have justified the actions of a proscribed terrorist organisation and stated your intention to support and arm them, mean your presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. I note that we have not seen any information that indicates that you have spoken out against Hamas or the actions they have undertaken.
Malema has previously stated that 'cutting the throat of whiteness' refers to a system of white supremacy and not white people.
But the Home Office secretary said:
Taking the above into account, your presence in the UK has been assessed as non-conducive to the public good on the grounds of your conduct, character and associations, which makes it undesirable to grant you entry to the UK.
'I consider that the above statements, notably that your political party would arm a proscribed organisation and other statements you made justifying the actions of proscribed terrorist organisations, mean your presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good,' said the letter.
The Home Office advised Malema that there is no right of appeal against its decision or right to its administrative review.
It said any future UK visa applications would likely be refused unless he provided 'compelling new evidence with your next application'.
An application for entry clearance, permission to enter or permission to stay in the UK is refused where the applicant's presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good because of their conduct, character, associations or other reasons, including convictions which do not fall within the criminality grounds.
According to the Home Office, a person's presence in the UK may be considered not conducive to the public good if the individual has been involved in unacceptable behaviour, including past or current extremist behaviour. Unacceptable behaviour covers an individual who uses any means or medium to express views which incite, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of beliefs.
The UK government's definition of extremism considers that extremists can incite hatred, erode democratic institutions, social capital and cohesion. It says extremism is the promotion or advance of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that is characterised by behaviour against a group, or members of it, that seeks to negate or destroy their rights to live equally under the law and free of fear, threat, violence and discrimination.