Court ruling against artist Gabriele Goliath in Venice Biennale case against Minister McKenzie leaves the art community disappointed

By Edward Tsumele, CITYLIFE/ARTS Editor

The arts community has been shocked by the judgment of the Pretoria High Court in a case brought by artist Gabriele Goliath against an independent panel of art experts as the right person to represent the country after a public call.

McKenzie, whose department carries the cost of the South African pavilion had other ideas. McKenzie got a flak from the arts community and freedom of expression activists when he cancelled the participation of Goliath at the world’s leading arts event on the South African pavilion late last year. He claimed that Goliath’s work, which was about to be bought by a museum from Qatar, served the interest of a foreign power, and was not a proper installation to be exhibited at such as an international forum due to its content.

The installation titled Elegy investigates the issue of gender Based Violence, a recurring pandemic in South Africa, the German genocide in Namibia during the colonial times against the Nama people, and is a critique of Israel Soldiers in Palestine where a raging war in which children are affected is currently going on Elegy reference the soldiers as the guilty part in the killing of children.

The reason for cancelling the show is however not clear cut as the Minister issued conflicting statements. One time it was because an unnamed foreign government, thought to be Qatar, was going to use the pavilion and the installation to wage a campaign against Israel. At another time, it was because the installation was not going to represent South Africa properly at such an international high profile’ forum due to its ‘controversial’ nature.

The public was therefore left in the dark.

However, the judge yesterday, February 18, 2026, dismissed the case with costs. She did not give reasons. Social media immediately went into overdrive regarding the ruling, suggesting that escalating it to a higher court was in order, especially because it was going to set an uncomfortable precedent. This is especially so when it comes to the issue of freedom of expression, something they argued, is at the heart of the constitution. Others were worried about the cost order against the litigants.

“It is not what the arts sector would have wanted to hear but the High Court has dismissed the application made against the Minister of Sport, Arts & Culture, Gayton Mckenzie in respect of the Venice Biennale. The order is dismissed with the applicants having to pay costs.” Ismail Mahomed said.

He added. “This news is certainly met by the arts sector with dismay, anger and extreme disappointment; all of which is understandable. Goliath’s victory in this case would have be more than just a victory for the artist. It would have been a symbolic victory for the arts sector, for free expression and for resistance against overt State control.

I assume that there is more than one possible reason for the judge to have dismissed this case. The first is that deadlines for the VB may have rendered the case moot.

Secondly, the issue of the applicants listed as bringing the case to the court is of concern to me. In my understanding from all media articles the contract with the DSAC was with Art Periodic. Interestingly, Art Periodic is not listed as the applicant in the court order. The applicants in this case are three individuals and a joinder to the case — the Campaign For Free Expression. It will be interesting to know why the applicant was not Art Periodic and if this could possibly be the reason for the judge basing her ruling on contract law to dismiss the case? (Who is the legal contractor).”

“I think part of the problem is that participation at international events is not regulated or enabled by a specific legislation. Perhaps a legislation is needed to ensure predictability and transparency of decisions around the countrys’ participation on international cultural platforms,” reasons Bongs WaseLenge.

Probably badly prepared Application. As an attorney of 35 years, a huge amount hinges on how, when, and to whom it is pitched. With respect to the lawyer,” argues Adrian Louw.

“Oh no! Seriously! FFS! This sets a very worrying precedent. I am so sorry that they also have to pay costs on top of this shit, ”says Gavin Krastin.

Unbelievable. This is so deeply disappointing on so many levels,” concludes Tanya Katherine Poole.

The judge has ruled, and therefore it will be interesting to see what is the next move on the part of the litigants in the next few days as it looks like the game is not over-not yet, based on the reaction of the arts community.