Nota pens scathing letter to SAHRC

Controversial media personality and podcaster, Nhlamulo Baloyi, popularly known as Nota, has filed a scathing letter to South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) in response to the Chapter 9 institution’s letter of demand it recently sent him.

The SAHRC in Gauteng wrote to Baloyi on Wednesday, demanding that he makes a public apology and pay damages, among others, for the eyebrow raising comments he recently made on The Hustlers’ Corner podcast with DJ Sbu.

In the podcast, Nota referred to white people as inferior to black people, saying they have non-human genes.

The media personality cited research done by eugenicists like Clive Derby Lewis to defend his opinion.

In a letter seen by YNews, Baloyi shreds the commission’s actions to pieces, saying they were procedurally and legally flawed.

“The SAHRC’s letter asserts that, after a “careful assessment,” it has “found” a prima facie violation of the rights to equality (Section 9) and human dignity (Section 10) of the Constitution. However, I was neither informed of the complaint nor given an opportunity to respond or present my perspective prior
to this determination. This approach contravenes the principles of due process and natural justice, which are foundational to South African administrative law,” the music executive tells the commission.

He also cites the lack of evidence that his statements constitute unprotected hate speech that intended to
incite harm or promote hatred against white people as one of his concerns over the SAHRC’s actions.

“Intent cannot be presumed from the mere fact that some individuals found my statements offensive or lodged complaints. Offense, while understandable, does not equate to a legal violation. The law demands a rigorous analysis of whether I deliberately sought to cause harm or provoke violence. Without substantiating how my words demonstrate this intent, the SAHRC’s conclusions remain speculative and legally insufficient,” Baloyi explains.

The artist has warned the human rights commission against pursuing punitive measures against individuals without a hearing, saying they run the risk of stifling debate on complex social issues, which contradicts the Constitution.

“If individuals face punitive measures based on decontextualised snippets and subjective complaints—without due process or proof of harmful intent—open discourse on complex social issues will suffer. The Constitution envisions a society where diverse, even controversial, views can be aired and debated, not silenced preemptively.”

Baloyi has refused to apologise nor remove the controversial content from social media and instead invited the SAHRC to a dialogue to discuss the context and intent of his statements.

“The quoted snippets may reflect a rhetorical flourish, a critique rooted in historical or scientific discourse, or even a satirical commentary — possibilities that cannot be fairly evaluated without examining the entire conversation,” he says.

He has given the Chapter 9 institution seven days to respond to his request, while warning that he reserves his right to find recourse at another legal forum should the SAHRC not address the concerns he has raised.

Last month, some social media users came out in defense of the podcaster, accusing the SAHRC of targetting black people.