'Zulu warrior' DJ sues for R10m

UKHOZI FM DJ Ngizwe Mchunu wants the Department of Agriculture and the South African Revenue Service to pay for what he claims was discrimination when his traditional Zulu shield was confiscated and inspected for foot-and-mouth disease at Durban's King Shaka International Airport in April.

Mchunu yesterday lodged an application to add the department, agriculture department official Thalamothalo Phaka, SARS customs, as well as customs official Mark Meintjies as respondents in his discrimination case, which was brought against the airport in April.

He is suing the airport for R10-million for "humiliating" him when airport security officers confiscated his shield, which he had forgotten at the airport before jetting off to Dubai for a tourism event.

He claims that on arrival in Durban, when he enquired about the shield, Phaka and airport staff threatened to destroy it on the basis that it was "infested with foot-and-mouth disease".

During yesterday's proceedings, attended by maidens, women and warriors clad in traditional attire and some carrying shields, Mchunu's attorney, Thulani Khuzwayo, said the airport was referred to as the first respondent because the incident occurred on its premises.

"When documents were brought to us in July, we were not aware that Phaka was employed by the Department of Agriculture and Meintjies by Sars," Khuzwayo said.

"Interestingly, the Department of Agriculture procured defence services for Phaka, though the department was initially not a respondent in the case and the same applied to Meintjies, which is why we want these entities to be joined."

Magistrate John Saunders raised concerns over the application, stating the department could not be sued and that a minister or MEC should be a respondent.

Khuzwayo conceded that the MEC or minister would eventually be held accountable.

But, Saunders warned Khuzwayo about the danger of bringing the "employer-employee relation" to the Equality Court.

"It could easily be thrown out because this is not a labour court," he said.

Representing Sars, Thandazani Madonsela argued that he could not represent Meintjies because he was a "non-actor" in the incident. He also argued the case was "prematurely" brought before the court.

"The claim that the applicant suffered discrimination because he was a Zulu does not stand and it does not show how he was ever discriminated against," Madonsela said.

The Department of Agriculture's attorney, Craig Bailey, said his client had not been served with a notice by Mchunu's attorney.

Saunders warned that the Equality Court was not interested in "technicalities" but in justice, fairness and fundamental rights, adding that the case had aroused "a lot of public interest as people wanted to know what happened with the ihawu (traditional shield)".

The matter was adjourned to November 9 for Mchunu's legal team to reconsider the application against the Department of Agriculture and SARS.

Mchunu told supporters gathered outside the court that the case was not about money, but about defending a black person's dignity and tradition.

Click to expand...

Mchunu told supporters gathered outside the court that the case was not about money, but about defending a black person's dignity and tradition.

Click to expand...

DJ... said:

What a w@nker.



And R10m...

Click to expand...

JungleBoy said:

Let's face it, had he claimed a meagre R100 K, the respondents would have paid and made the issue disappear without a fuss... So ya, the R10m tag is ridiculous and only serves one purpose - to get attention and the publicity for his case.

Click to expand...

JungleBoy said:

Let's face it, had he claimed a meagre R100 K, the respondents would have paid and made the issue disappear without a fuss.

Click to expand...