The Western Cape High Court has granted Cape Union Mart a final interdict against Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) activists, barring them from publicly linking the retailer and its chairperson, Philip Krawitz, to Israel or the genocide in Gaza.
The ruling comes after nearly two years of nationwide protests outside the company’s stores and leaves the boycott itself intact.
But what does the ruling mean? Can there still be boycotts and protests, and what are they not allowed to do? We do a deep dive into what is allowed and what the interdict bans.
Are PSC and others still allowed to boycott and protest?
Yes, they are fully allowed to continue their boycott and protest.
The court explicitly noted that no order was sought or granted to prevent the respondents from boycotting Cape Union Mart or from assembling in public places to protest.
The boycott itself remains a legally protected form of expression, if the activists stay within the boundaries set by the court’s interdict.
What is allowed and what is banned?
According to the court, it was not making a political or international relations pronouncement on the war in Palestine.
It reiterated that it was evaluating justiciable legal claims under South African law regarding defamation, personal dignity, and lawful protest conduct.
What is allowed
- The boycott survives: The court refused to ban the consumer boycott or peaceful assembly. Protesters can still organise, march, and call for a boycott. However, the ruling only restricts certain statements and tactics, and not the campaign itself.
- Criticism of Israel remains protected: The court stressed it was not making any political pronouncement on the war and that criticising Israel or its military operations in Gaza remains fully lawful.
- The company is not insulated: The court made clear the order does not protect Cape Union Mart or its leadership from continued public scrutiny, accountability campaigns, or criticism.
- Both parties ordered to pay their costs: The court ordered each side to pay its own legal fees, refusing to reward the company’s litigation. The judges noted Cape Union Mart initially sought overbroad relief and that Krawitz’s own interview remarks had “unhelpfully stoked” the dispute.
What the interdict now bans
- Funding allegations: The PSC cannot say that Cape Union Mart or any of its brands (including K-Way, Poetry, and Old Khaki) are funding the genocide or any military action in Gaza.
- Allegations against Mr Krawitz: Similar to the first point, they cannot claim that Mr Krawitz is funding genocide, the Israeli army, or the war and genocide in Gaza.
- State association claims: Activists cannot state that Cape Union Mart or its brands are associated with the State of Israel. This is a limit, because it bars a central claim of the boycott campaign, even though the court did not rule on the company’s actual sourcing or investment ties.
- Claims of killing children: Activists cannot claim or publish statements that the applicants are killing children, are complicit in killing children, or support a genocide in Gaza.
- Blocking store entrances: They are prohibited from preventing Cape Union Mart’s customers from accessing its retail stores.
- Violating protest laws: During any protest action at Cape Union Mart premises, activists are ordered to comply with the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993 (which includes the legal requirement under section 8(7) not to wear masks or disguises that obscure facial features).
Background
This interdict comes after the PSC held protests outside and near Cape Union Mart stores across the country for nearly two years.
The retailer has been accused on numerous occasions of “supporting genocide”, in reference to what the group describes as the ongoing genocide in Gaza, involving the continued killing of Palestinians by Israel.
In court papers, Cape Union Mart is cited as the first applicant, and the second applicant is owner and executive chairman.
The respondents are five activists from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign: Magmuda Ockards, Muhammad Shafiq Gamiet, Mohamed Zaid Jeenah, Sherazaad Rahima Sylvester, and Sayed Ridhwaan Mohamed.
The sixth respondent is unidentified protesters, and the seventh respondent is the PSC.
In its application, Cape Union Mart asked the court to interdict and restrain the PSC from harassing and intimidating customers and staff.
Judge J Cloete said the respondents failed to establish a factual basis for their allegations and relied heavily on hearsay evidence.
This is not the end of the boycotts. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign says its boycott campaign against Cape Union Mart will continue despite a Western Cape High Court interdict in favour of the retailer.
IOL
