Sarah McMillan/cvnznews.com
Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki has pleaded not guilty to three charges of inciting racial disharmony, setting the stage for what supporters say could become one of New Zealand’s most significant free speech cases in recent years.
Appearing in Manukau District Court on Monday, Tamaki denied all three charges laid under Section 131 of the Human Rights Act. The charges relate to comments and videos published on Facebook in June.
Following the hearing, Tamaki declared “Free Speech on Trial” and told supporters he intended to vigorously defend the case. He also highlighted that no special bail conditions had been imposed and confirmed his next case review hearing is scheduled for January 25, 2027.
Read More: Brian Tamaki Charged Over Alleged Racial Disharmony Comments – cvnznews.com
The charges stem from comments made after Tamaki criticised Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and alleged persecution of Christians in India. Prosecutors allege posts published between June 15 and June 21 were abusive or insulting and intended to excite hostility or ill-will against Indians on the basis of race or national origin.
Outside court, Tamaki rejected that interpretation.
“They’re trying to say it’s racial, and I’m saying to them it never has been,” he told media, arguing his comments focused on religion and political issues rather than race.
Video courtesy NZ Herald
Police have largely declined to comment on the substance of the case because it is now before the courts.
However, Detective Senior Sergeant Natalie Nelson previously confirmed Police had summonsed a person on three charges of inciting racial disharmony and noted that prosecutions under Section 131 require the consent of the Solicitor-General. She said Police were “not in a position to comment on the specifics” while court proceedings were underway.
The case has also drawn criticism from the Free Speech Union, which argues Police have relied on hate speech provisions rather than criminal incitement laws. The organisation claims the prosecution raises important questions about the boundaries between offensive speech, religious criticism and criminal conduct.
Supporters gathered outside court carrying signs declaring “Free Speech on Trial”, while critics argue the Human Rights Act exists to protect communities from rhetoric that could inflame hostility.
With guilty pleas rejected and both sides preparing for a legal battle, the case is likely to become a closely watched test of where New Zealand draws the line between free expression and unlawful speech.
