- The Supreme Court of Appeal has dismissed Willem Hendrik Ackerman’s challenge against findings that he engaged in hate speech and harassment.
- The court held that using the k-word, even in private conversations between business associates, can still amount to hate speech.
- Ackerman has been ordered to pay R500 000 to the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation, issue a public apology, and complete 50 hours of racial sensitivity training.
The Supreme Court of Appeal has confirmed that businessman Willem Hendrik Ackerman committed hate speech by repeatedly using the k-word during private conversations with his former business associate, Garth Wellman.
The court found that the private nature of the racist remarks, and the fact that Wellman is white, did not shield Ackerman from liability under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act.
A panel of five judges, led by Judge of Appeal N Dambuza, dismissed Ackerman’s appeal on Wednesday, 7 October 2026, ordering him to pay all legal costs, including the costs of two counsel.
The three racist communications
Ackerman, a white South African and former client of Caleo Capital, received investment management services from the company between 2008 and 2022. Caleo was co-owned by Emmanuel Amaning, who is black, and Wellman, who is white.
The Equality Court found that Ackerman used the k-word in three separate communications with Wellman between January 2018 and October 2021.
In January 2018, during a discussion about Ackerman’s investment portfolio, he said, “the k**s running this country will just keep f**ng it up as they have done in the rest of Africa.”
In August 2019, after a robbery at his home, Ackerman sent Wellman a WhatsApp message saying, “Garth, after today I might be seen as a racist, but I will man alone kill every k**r that crosses my path. So God help me.”
Then, in October 2021, while discussing how a NUMSA strike might affect his business, Ackerman told Wellman, “my k**s know their place.”
Ackerman denied making the statements and challenged the authenticity of the WhatsApp message. He also argued that his communications were private and protected by the constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of expression.
Private does not mean protected
The Supreme Court of Appeal rejected the argument that these remarks were protected simply because they were made in private.
Judge Dambuza explained that privacy exists on a spectrum, and that the protection of a person’s private sphere becomes weaker as they enter business and social relationships.
The conversations between Ackerman and Wellman happened in the context of their business relationship, and so were not part of the ‘inner sanctum’ of personal life protected by the principle recognised in the Constitutional Court’s Qwelane judgment.
The court also rejected Ackerman’s argument that the remarks could not be hate speech because Wellman is white. “The identity of the person or party to whom the k-word or other communication is made has no bearing on whether the k-word or other communication constitutes hate speech,” said Dambuza.
The court found that the word is inherently harmful to the dignity of black South Africans, and that its hateful and discriminatory character does not depend on who happens to be present when it is used.
Meaning of the k-word is settled
The Supreme Court of Appeal noted that South African law has established the meaning and significance of the k-word. “Our courts have described the k-word as inescapably racist, with derogatory connotations that a reasonable person cannot interpret differently,” Dambuza said.
The court found that Ackerman’s three communications did not fall within the limited situations where the word might be used legitimately, such as in academic inquiry or in fair and accurate reporting in the public interest.
The court also rejected Ackerman’s explanation that his use of the word after the robbery referred to non-believers in God rather than black people.
Dambuza said the August 2019 message showed “homicidal contempt” for “every k**r that crosses [his] path” and was not limited to those who had robbed Ackerman’s home. “The argument about the spelling is just a deflection of blame,” the judge said.
WhatsApp message accepted as evidence
The Supreme Court of Appeal also upheld the finding that the WhatsApp message was authentic and could be admitted as evidence.
The court said a WhatsApp message counts as a data message and can be admitted as documentary evidence if its authenticity and integrity are proven. The court rejected the argument that expert IT evidence was needed to show that Ackerman sent the message.
The surrounding circumstances also supported the finding that Ackerman sent the message. The day after sending it, he told Wellman he had deleted it because he had been “in an extremely emotional state.”
The Supreme Court of Appeal found no reason to overturn the Equality Court’s credibility findings.
R500 000 payment and racial training upheld
The Equality Court ordered Ackerman to pay R500 000 to the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation, issue a public apology to Amaning and Wellman, complete 50 hours of racial sensitivity training, and pay their legal costs.
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that all of these remedies were within the powers available to the Equality Court under the Equality Act.
The court said the 50 hours of racial sensitivity training were appropriate, given Ackerman’s repeated racist comments and the circumstances in which they were made. “The communications in question indicate a clear lack of understanding of the nature and extent of harm that racial prejudice causes in South Africa,” Dambuza said.
The appeal was dismissed with costs, meaning the Equality Court’s orders now stand.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
