A SOUTH African court has dismissed allegations of a so-called ‘white genocide’ in the country, describing the claims as ‘clearly imagined and not real.’ The ruling undermines previous assertions made by figures such as former US President Donald Trump and billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk.
The verdict came as the court blocked a $2.1 million donation from a wealthy benefactor to the white supremacist group Boerelegioen. The funds were intended to ‘further its messages of racial hatred and separation,’ but judges ruled the bequest invalid, ‘vague,’ and ‘contrary to public policy.’
Misinformation and global narratives
In recent years, Trump and Musk have echoed unfounded claims about the supposed large-scale killing of white farmers in South Africa. Trump previously referred to the ‘large-scale killing of farmers,” while Musk condemned what he called ‘racist ownership laws,’ going so far as to claim white South Africans faced ‘genocide.’
Despite Trump’s strict stance on immigration, he once pledged to grant white South African farmers refugee status in the US, citing persecution—an assertion contradicted by local crime data.
Musk, who was born in South Africa but later moved to the US, has frequently amplified claims of racial targeting, contributing to a narrative embraced by far-right movements worldwide.
The court battle and family dispute
The court case revolved around the estate of Grantland Michael Gray, a paralysed former soldier who died in March 2022. His four siblings, also trustees and beneficiaries of the family trust, challenged his bequest to Boerelegioen, arguing that he had been ‘obsessed with the idea of an impending genocide of white people in South Africa’ during the last decade of his life.
Judge Rosheni Allie, in a ruling delivered on 15 February, stated that Gray’s beliefs were shaped by ‘his already present racism and the online content he was exposed to.’ He had met Boerelegioen members in 2020 and donated about $326,000 in gold coins before making the group a beneficiary of his estate, the BBC reported.
The group, which describes itself as a ‘civil defence movement,’ promotes the notion that white South Africans face an existential threat. However, the court rejected this claim, stating that ‘the only expression of [Gray’s] intention that is evident is his assertion that the funds should benefit an organisation he believed would exterminate every black person in South Africa.’
Legal and political implications
The ruling is significant not only for rejecting the ‘white genocide’ myth but also for setting a legal precedent against funding hate groups under the guise of inheritance. The court found Gray’s request vague due to multiple entities using the Boerelegioen name, further weakening the legitimacy of the bequest.
Additionally, the court upheld the argument that ‘Boerelegioen seeks to further racial hatred and separation,’ ordering the organisation to pay legal costs.
Meanwhile, Trump’s past statements on South African land reform continue to fuel political tensions. Earlier this month, he signed an executive order freezing financial aid to South Africa, citing a new law that allows land expropriation under certain conditions.
Reality check: crime data vs. rhetoric
Despite claims of racial targeting, crime statistics in South Africa tell a different story. The country does not release crime data based on race, but official figures show that 6,953 people were murdered between October and December 2024. Of these, only 12 were killed in farm attacks—including just one farmer.
By contrast, in the same period, 961 women and 273 children were murdered. These figures highlight that violent crime in South Africa is not racially motivated but rather a broader issue affecting all demographics.
A blow to far-right misinformation
This ruling dismantles a long-standing far-right talking point that has influenced political rhetoric in the US and beyond. By legally affirming that ‘white genocide’ is a fabrication, the South African court has taken a firm stance against the dangerous spread of racial paranoia and misinformation.
With this case now settled, the focus shifts to the broader implications of online radicalisation and how easily misinformation can shape public perception—even at the highest levels of global politics.
