Lawyers representing Cape Union Mart and its executive chair, Philip Krawitz, urged the Western Cape High Court to grant an interdict against pro-Palestine activists, reports News24.

They argued there was ‘no rational or sustainable basis’ for claims linking the retailer and its founder to genocide.

The case stems from demonstrations held outside Cape Union Mart stores by activists and members of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), who have accused Krawitz of supporting organisations connected to Israel and, by extension, its military actions in Gaza.

Cape Union Mart approached the court last year seeking an order restricting protests and defamatory statements directed at the company and Krawitz.

The retailer maintained placards and slogans branding Krawitz and the company as supporters of genocide were false and damaging to their reputations.

Closing arguments were heard yesterday before judges Judith Cloete, Roy Barendse, and Constance Nziweni.

Advocate Chris Woodrow SC, appearing for Cape Union Mart and Krawitz, argued the respondents had failed to establish a factual foundation for their allegations. Woodrow said: ‘Mr Krawitz believes in the right to protest, but you cannot misrepresent the truth and lie.’

The PSC and several activists opposed the application, arguing the protests were constitutionally protected political expression and were directed at Krawitz’s association with organisations they believed supported Israel.

Advocate Ismail Jamie SC, appearing for the PSC and activists, told the court the campaign was not motivated by Krawitz’s religion or ethnicity.

‘The PSC’s reason for boycotting Cape Union Mart is not the religion or ethnicity of its founders and owners,’ Jamie said.

Instead, he argued activists were protesting what they viewed as Krawitz’s links to organisations that supported Israel and its military. Jamie told the court that the activists were not seeking to hold Cape Union Mart legally liable for Israel’s actions in Gaza, but maintained that Krawitz could be criticised and protested against because of those associations.

According to News24, Jamie argued that the Constitution protected robust, and even offensive, political speech, particularly in the context of protest.

Jamie argued that requiring activists to wait for courts or international tribunals to determine liability before protesting would undermine constitutional rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

The PSC previously argued that granting the interdict would amount to a ‘gagging order’ that would chill future pro-Palestinian protest action.

Following the end of proceedings, Cape Union Mart said it was satisfied it had fully ventilated its case before the court.

Judgment was reserved.

Full News24 report