On Wednesday, 11 February 2026, Gabrielle Goliath and Ingrid Masondo had their day in court. The artist, curator and their team are challenging the Department of Sports, Art and Culture Minister, Gayton McKenzie, for cancelling her participation as the selected artist for the South African Pavilion at the 61st Venice Biennale.
In a letter to the artist and her team on 2 January, Minister McKenzie withdrew Goliath’s ‘Elegy’, which had been selected unanimously by an independent team of art experts appointed by Art Periodic, the non-profit organisation which was set to administer and produce South Africa’s participation in Venice.
The hearing, which took place online, was brought before Judge Mamoloko Kubushi, where Goliath’s lawyers argued for the protection of constitutional rights against censorship. The selected work, ‘Elegy’, which is a performance and video installation that memorialises individuals victimised by acts of brutal and sexualised violence, was labelled by Minister McKenzie as being divisive and therefore not suitable as a representation of South Africa to the world. In particular, because this iteration of the work addresses the deaths of women and children in Gaza, alongside femicide in South Africa and the Herero and Nama genocide in Namibia.
Goliath’s case, led by Advocate Adila Hassim, provided an assessment of the minister’s conduct, arguing that the minister’s decision overstepped his authority. In a detailed announcement issued on 7 November 2025 and circulated publicly, DSAC and Art Periodic declared, “Following DSAC’s confirmation that no public tender would be issued for this edition, A°P submitted an unsolicited expression of interest to fundraise, administer, and produce the Pavilion. After due consideration, this proposal was formally accepted by the Department, which will continue to support the Pavilion through the rental of South Africa’s space in the Arsenale,” elaborating that “this represents a pivotal shift in how South Africa is represented in Venice, from a government-led process to one of sector-driven stewardship, rooted in collaboration, inclusivity, and public accountability.” Goliath’s lawyers pointed to this as an effective promise to the public, with no indication (here or in later correspondence) that the minister reserved any right to veto the decision over the selection process. They claimed that the independent committee’s decision was binding on the minister and further that his conduct was irrational, unreasonable and violated the constitutional right to freedom of artistic expression, a right that holds special significance in a country that comes from apartheid-era censorship.
In addition, Hassim drew attention to what she described as litigation misconduct by Minister McKenzie. She revealed that the minister had been aware since early February of a supposed 6 February deadline for catalogue submissions to the Venice Committee, but failed to disclose this to the court or the applicants until filing his answering affidavit on 9 February, arguing that this conduct reflects bad faith on the minister’s part. It was later determined that the deadline had been extended by the Venice committee (to 18 February), and therefore, the matter brought to court would still be valid and not rendered moot.
Alongside Goliath’s legal team, The Campaign for Free Expression, a non-profit organisation dedicated to protecting and expanding the right to free expression for ALL, broadened the argument beyond Goliath’s individual case. Represented by Advocate Ben Winks, they warned that the minister’s actions were effectively sending a message to South African artists that if they do not conform to government-sanctioned narratives, they may face exclusion. Winks emphasised that McKenzie’s letters to Art Periodic made his motivations explicit, that he was concerned and therefore objected to the content of the artwork and its engagement with the subject of Palestine. This, he believed, was an attempt to limit artistic expression to propaganda.
The minister’s defence, led by Advocate Zinzile Matebese, took an entirely different approach, reframing the dispute as a contractual matter between the department and Art Periodic. Matebese argued that the minister withdrew access to the pavilion from Art Periodic based on a breakdown of trust with the organisation. He asserted that the minister’s decision had nothing to do with censorship. He also highlighted that the court papers had been served “improperly” by Goliath’s team, noting they were sent by email to the state attorney rather than served by an appointed representative of the court, to ensure the service is valid and legal. He argued, too, that Art Periodic should have been joined as a necessary party in the case, since, without their involvement, any court order would be impossible to implement. Following his defence, Matebese requested the court to dismiss the case.
Judge Kubushi acknowledged the tension between delivering a thorough judgment and meeting imminent deadlines imposed by the Venice Biennale. The judge reserved judgment without specifying a date for ruling.
As of the date of publication, no ruling has been issued.
[This article was changed to reflect both Gabrielle Goliath and Ingrid Masondo. The original article and Instagram post only mentioned the artist and not the curator.]
