South African political leader Julius Malema continues to lead “Kill the Boer” chants while President Cyril Ramaphosa remains silent, drawing international scrutiny and confrontation from U.S. President Donald Trump.
At a Glance
- Julius Malema, leader of South Africa’s Economic Freedom Fighters, publicly led and shared “Kill the Boer,” “Shoot to kill,” and “Kill the farmer” chants
- President Cyril Ramaphosa has not explicitly condemned these inflammatory remarks despite their potential to incite violence
- President Donald Trump confronted Ramaphosa directly with video evidence during an Oval Office meeting
- South African courts have not banned the chants despite the constitution’s prohibition on hate speech
- Ramaphosa claims such rhetoric is not government policy while experts dispute allegations of a white farmer “genocide”
Inflammatory Rhetoric Draws International Attention
Julius Malema, the controversial leader of South Africa’s Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), has repeated inflammatory chants including “Kill the Boer,” “Shoot to kill,” and “Kill the farmer” at public gatherings. Malema not only led these chants but also distributed footage of them on social media platforms, amplifying their reach and impact. The term “Boer” specifically refers to white South African farmers of Dutch descent, making these statements particularly concerning in a country with a complex racial history and ongoing land ownership disputes.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has faced growing criticism for his reluctance to explicitly condemn these incendiary statements. Despite the chants’ potential for inciting violence and violating South Africa’s constitutional ban on hate speech, the country’s courts have not taken definitive action to prohibit them. This judicial inaction has further complicated the situation, raising questions about South Africa’s commitment to protecting all citizens regardless of race.
— Compete (@johann_theron) May 18, 2025
Trump-Ramaphosa Confrontation
The controversy reached the international stage when President Donald Trump directly confronted President Ramaphosa during an Oval Office meeting. Trump presented Ramaphosa with video footage of Malema’s incendiary speeches, including the controversial chants, and raised concerns about the safety of white South African farmers. The confrontation highlighted the growing international awareness of South Africa’s internal tensions and put Ramaphosa in the difficult position of defending his government’s policies.
“People are fleeing South Africa for their own safety, Their land is being confiscated and in many cases they’re being killed.”, said Donald Trump.
In response, Ramaphosa claimed that his government opposes such language, referencing the Freedom Charter, but stopped short of explicitly condemning Malema’s chants. During the tense exchange, Ramaphosa expressed confusion over some of Trump’s evidence, including a video purportedly showing white crosses representing murdered farmers, which South African reports indicate was actually from a 2020 demonstration rather than actual burial sites.
Dispute Over Facts and Government Policy
When presented with the video evidence, Ramaphosa emphasized that Malema represents a “small minority party” and does not speak for the South African government. The South African president insisted that his administration does not support such rhetoric or policies targeting white farmers, though critics note his reluctance to issue a clear and direct condemnation of Malema’s statements specifically. Ramaphosa also pointed out that the majority of murder victims in South Africa are Black, suggesting a more complex crime situation than portrayed.
“We are completely opposed to that, that is not government policy and our government policy is completely, completely against what he was saying.”, said Cyril Ramaphosa.
Experts in South Africa maintain there is no evidence supporting claims of a systematic targeting of white farmers based on race, though they acknowledge the country’s overall high crime rate affects farmers of all backgrounds. After their initially tense meeting, Trump invited Ramaphosa for further discussions, suggesting a potential thawing of relations. Notably, South Africa’s agricultural minister, John Steenhuisen, who is white, joined the governing coalition specifically to prevent Malema’s party from gaining power, adding another layer to the complex political landscape.
International Implications
The controversy has broader implications for South Africa’s international standing. Afrikaner leaders have argued that Ramaphosa’s tepid response to Malema’s inflammatory rhetoric undermines South Africa’s moral authority in its case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. The Trump administration had previously taken action based on these concerns, including stopping certain U.S. aid to South Africa and offering refugee status to white South African farmers based on claims of persecution.
“That is not government policy. Our government policy is completely against what he is saying, even in the Parliament.”, said President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Following their meeting, Ramaphosa attempted to downplay the confrontation, stating that their private conversation did not focus primarily on Trump’s concerns about white farmers. The controversy continues to highlight the delicate balance South Africa faces as it attempts to address historical inequalities while avoiding inflammatory rhetoric that could potentially incite violence in a nation still working through the complex legacy of apartheid.
