Image Source: Mondoweiss
Local – A dispute over a pro-Palestine mural in Marlboro has intensified concerns about freedom of expression and the uneven enforcement of municipal bylaws.
The artwork, intended to show solidarity with Palestine, Sudan, Congo and the Rohingya, was halted shortly after it began.
The incident has prompted questions about whether political messages, particularly those addressing global injustices, are being treated differently from ordinary public art.
According to Umayya Theba of South African Friends of Palestine, the artist had only begun outlining the mural when officers intervened.
She described the artwork as a peaceful, community-minded effort that sought to highlight humanitarian struggles. The early visuals were designed to draw awareness, not controversy.
“Beautiful visuals that show solidarity with Palestine, Sudan, Congo, the Rohingya.”
Police Justification and Enforcement
Theba recounted that officers invoked outdoor advertising bylaws and claimed the wall belonged to the city council.
The explanation surprised those present because the mural contained no promotional or commercial content, and written permission had already been secured from the homeowner.
The abrupt shutdown left many questioning whether the bylaw was being applied accurately.
She noted that the intervention escalated quickly. Instead of limiting their concern to a specific section, officers ordered all painting to stop.
The level of enforcement, in her view, bore little resemblance to how similar street art or graffiti is typically handled in Johannesburg.
“Disobeying the statutory legislative provision of the outdoor advertising bylaws of 2009 as found in section 31 of the bylaws.”
The situation became more tense when one of the painters was escorted to the homeowner to re-verify permission that had already been granted.
Theba recalled that the resident—an elderly woman—was visibly unsettled by the unexpected police presence.
The scene, she suggested, caused distress that was wholly unnecessary for a fully authorised mural.
“This is an elderly lady, and I think you know she was also a little traumatised by that.”
Concerns Over Targeting and Intent
For Theba, the officers’ focus on the word “genocide” was especially troubling. She argued that the objection could not be separated from the political context, particularly given South Africa’s own international legal position.
In her view, the discomfort seemed directed at the message rather than the mural’s legality.
“Who can be offended with the word genocide except the perpetrators of that genocide, which are Zionists.”
The broader response raised deeper concerns for her about motive and consistency.
She questioned whether external pressure or internal bias had shaped the officers’ actions, and whether similar interventions would occur if the political message aligned differently.
“It makes you wonder… why would the police react that way. Who are they trying to make happy?”
Despite attempts to halt the work, the word later reappeared on the wall, added anonymously.
For Theba, this was an indication that public determination to express solidarity remains strong, even in the face of official pushback.
“The policemen are welcome to go and paint over it if they like.”
