Malema approached the court to have the act, which he is charged under for allegedly inciting violence and unlawful land occupation while addressing his followers in KwaZulu-Natal and Bloemfontein, invalidated.
Ngcukaitobi told the court that the act criminalises speech instead of action and therefore violates freedom of expression. In the video below Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi argues why the Act is not reasonable nor justifiable:
TembekaNgcukai1 we think you did well and hope that sanity prevails in that Concourt bench. The objective of the Riotous Act, which point I didn't hear you arguing, is more offensive to the Constitution. What your take pierredevos ?
Let us see whether our ConCourt will give rational decision or they will support the pains that were meted out to blacks for decade