NPA REFERRAL: Gqeberha businessman faces criminal investigation over anti-LGBTQIA+ conduct

Three years after displaying a sign barring members of the LGBTQIA+ community from his Gqeberha shop, businessman Dawood Lagardien now faces a referral to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for a “thorough criminal investigation”.

This follows an Equality Court ruling that found his conduct amounted to hate speech, unfair discrimination and harassment.

South Africa decriminalised consensual same-sex sexual activity in 1998, following the landmark Constitutional Court ruling in National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice.

Eight years later, South Africa became the first country in Africa to legalise same-sex marriage when the Civil Union Act came into effect on 30 November 2006.

Although the South African Human Rights Commission initially sought R500,000 in damages, the Equality Court in Gqeberha ordered Lagardien to pay R200,000 to an equality-promoting organisation and interdicted him from engaging in further hate speech, unfair discrimination or harassment.

He has been ordered to pay R100,000 within four months of the date of the order.

Judge Bulelwa Pakati found that Lagardien had unfairly discriminated against the LGBTQIA+ community by displaying a sign prohibiting its members from accessing services at his business, La Gardi Plastics & Baking Requirements.

The judge also found that his administration of a WhatsApp group in which harmful anti-LGBTQIA+ statements were shared constituted hate speech and harassment.

The judgment, delivered on 6 October 2026, followed a complaint lodged against Lagardien by the South African Human Rights Commission in 2023.

Court rejects religious freedom defence

In her judgment, Pakati rejected Lagardien’s reliance on religious freedom to justify his homophobic conduct, saying that his constitutional rights did not entitle him to trample on the rights of others.

“The respondent cannot be justified in conducting himself contrary to the Equality Act, and relies on his right to religion and hates others who equally have constitutional rights by hating them on prohibited grounds. He unfairly discriminated against the LGBTQIA+ community and, in the process, violated their right to equality, dignity and security.

“The LGBTQIA+ community should have full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms in terms of [section 9] of the Constitution, hence the object of the Equality Act. If the respondent felt harassed and unfairly discriminated against, as he suggests, he should have exercised his rights by reporting it to protect his rights. He did not do so. [...],” reads Pakati’s judgment.

“For him to refer to the LGBTQIA+ community as a burden is inconceivable. The LGBTQIA+ community has a right to life, too; hence, tolerance is important. To say that he created and managed the WhatsApp group to make people aware of the threats and what was happening with the issue is untenable,” it continued.

When approached for comment on Monday, 12 October, Lagardien said he had “no comment”, adding that his legal representatives were taking the matter on appeal.

‘LGBTQ Not Welcome’: How the dispute began

The dispute began in 2023, when Lagardien displayed a blackboard outside his shop bearing the words: “LGBTQ Not Welcome at La Gardi. Save our children!!! Right of Admission Reserved!!”

The sign sparked widespread public outrage and drew media coverage, including from MambaOnline.

The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) subsequently approached the Equality Court, arguing that Lagardien’s conduct violated the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act by promoting hate speech and discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Lagardien also established a WhatsApp group where anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric was allegedly spewed. According to court papers, the group’s display text reads “STOP THE F**S”, while its description identifies it as an “anti-LGBTQIA+ Group” with 698 participants. The SAHRC said Lagerdien had remained unapologetic in his stance.

At the time, Lagardien defended his decision, claiming that two men in their 20s had entered his shop and sexually fondled each other in front of other customers.

He told Algoa FM that an elderly woman had been forced to cover the eyes of a six-year-old boy who witnessed the two men.

“I immediately asked them to leave my store. They then mumbled something about Pride Month and LGBTQ,” he said.

“I do not hate gay people, and I do not have anything against them. Considering what happened in my store, I feel that my actions were 100% justified.”

In court papers, Lagardien also argued that his actions were informed by his religious beliefs.

“As part of his beliefs regarding Islam, he believes that same-sex relationships are un-Islamic and amoral,” his court papers stated. He maintained that his faith obliged him to take steps to prevent children from being exposed to behaviour he considered immoral.

His legal representatives argued that the sign was intended as a community safety alert to protect children, rather than a discriminatory statement motivated by hatred.

They also contended that religious people had the right to form communities and WhatsApp groups to discuss their beliefs and what they considered to be in society’s best interests.

However, the court found that Lagardien’s conduct violated the rights of members of the LGBTQIA+ community. The judge said he should have reported any alleged harassment or discrimination against himself rather than respond in a manner that infringed on the constitutional rights of others.

Equality ruling welcomed, concerns over delays

Sibonelo Ncanana-Trower, Human Rights Coordinator at OUT LGBT Well-being, said the organisation was “delighted” with the court outcome and the support provided by the South African Human Rights Commission, but raised concerns about the length of time equality court cases take to resolve.

“We hope this judgment will serve as a warning to others who think they can discriminate on the basis of race, sexual orientation, gender, age, ethnicity or religion. We hope it will deter them and make them think twice before discriminating against others.

“However, we would also have liked to see the Prevention of Hate Crimes Act already being implemented. I think it could have helped ensure a smoother process than the delays we have experienced in the equality courts.”

Ncanana-Trower, who is also the civil society organisation co-chairperson of South Africa’s National Task Team on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Expression and Sex Characteristics Matters, said the equality court process did not necessarily ensure that those found guilty of discrimination understood the harm they had caused.

“I don’t think they’re remorseful. I think they become resentful rather than remorseful. I also don’t think the process allows a person to understand the harm they have caused.

“As much as we get a judgment at the end, when the judgment is against you, I don’t think you have the time or energy to read it and understand why it was handed down.

“Maybe the equality court process could be a bit more civil. Some cases are, but this one felt very much like an ordinary court case, where a person does not understand their actions.”

Dr Eileen Carter, the SA Human Rights Commission’s manager in the Eastern Cape, said the judgment reaffirmed that freedom of religion and expression did not justify conduct that unlawfully infringed on others’ dignity and equality.

“The commission particularly welcomes the court’s recognition of the harm caused by conduct targeting historically marginalised communities. The protection of equality and dignity remains a constitutional imperative, irrespective of an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The commission remains committed to challenging unfair discrimination, harassment and hate speech, and to promoting a society founded on human dignity, equality and freedom for all,” she said. DM