De-Colonising Beauty: A Human Rights Analysis of Baba & Others v Clicks Group

Image Credit: Amar Preciado

Introduction

Beauty standards are not neutral. Across the globe, societal ideals of appearance are deeply influenced by history, culture, and power. In Africa, these ideals have been shaped by colonialism, which positioned Eurocentric aesthetics as superior. The 2022 High Court case Baba & Others v Clicks Group Limited & Another provides a contemporary lens to examine these issues. While the case arose from a controversial advertisement, it highlights enduring challenges of hair discrimination, racialised beauty norms, and the ongoing need to decolonise standards of attractiveness.

Background: The Case

In September 2020, a social media image depicting four women with different hair types circulated widely. The description associated with the two Black women’s hair included terms like “dry and damaged” and “frizzy and dull,” while descriptions of the white women’s hair were “fine and flat” or “normal.” The image sparked nationwide protests, leading to calls for boycotts of Clicks retail outlets and the TRESemmé brand.

The applicants argued that the image perpetuated racial stereotypes and violated South Africa’s Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (Equality Act). They contended that the advertisement demeaned Black women, perpetuated hair discrimination, and reinforced the social hierarchy established under colonial and apartheid-era norms.

Clicks Group and Unilever, the companies involved, contended that the image in question had been cropped by an unknown person and did not represent the original advertisement. They emphasised that their marketing included efforts to showcase diversity and afro-textured hair.

Court Decision

The Equality Court ultimately dismissed the case, finding that the applicants had not proven that the published advertisement had imposed tangible harm or unfairly discriminated against them under the Equality Act. The court distinguished between the social media image, which had circulated independently, and the advertisement originally published on Clicks’ website. The judgment also reinforced the principle of subsidiarity, noting that challenges should primarily rely on the statutory protections provided under the Equality Act rather than direct constitutional claims.

Coloniality of Beauty

Beyond the procedural outcome, the Baba case illuminates how Eurocentric beauty ideals continue to influence contemporary perceptions. Historically, African hair styles carried social, cultural, and spiritual significance.

Colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade disrupted these traditions, labelling Afro-textured hair as inferior and imposing straightened hair as the standard of beauty. This legacy persists today, often manifesting as “texturism”, discrimination based on hair type, which disproportionately affects Black women in workplaces, schools, and media representation.

The case underscores the subtle but pervasive effects of colonial mentality, where internalised norms shape perceptions of identity and self-worth. Even in post-apartheid South Africa, societal and corporate structures can unconsciously reinforce these hierarchies. Legal interventions, therefore, must be complemented by cultural and social strategies that challenge entrenched biases and promote inclusivity in beauty standards.

Implications for Beauty Law in Africa

The Baba case highlights the importance of addressing hair discrimination as part of broader human rights protections. While legislative frameworks like the Equality Act provide tools for redress, the persistence of hair bias suggests the need for proactive corporate policies, public education, and advocacy to promote Afrocentric beauty norms. Comparatively, measures such as the United States’ CROWN Act demonstrate the potential for legal instruments to protect against hair-based discrimination, suggesting avenues for African jurisdictions to explore.

Decolonising beauty requires reimagining norms that have long been treated as universal. This involves acknowledging historical injustices, amplifying African aesthetics, and dismantling the lingering social hierarchies imposed by colonial and apartheid legacies. It also calls on brands, policymakers, and society at large to recognise and value the diversity of hair textures, skin tones, and cultural expressions.

Conclusion

Baba & Others v Clicks Group extends beyond advertising disputes. It offers a critical moment for reflection on the ongoing impact of colonial and Eurocentric beauty standards in Africa. While the legal outcome focused narrowly on procedural and evidentiary factors, the broader discourse challenges both society and industry to confront racialised norms, embrace Afrocentric aesthetics, and pursue a more inclusive conception of beauty. True decolonisation of beauty is not only legal but cultural, requiring deliberate efforts to restore dignity, representation, and self-expression to historically marginalised communities.

Keywords: human rights, anti-discrimination, cosmetics & beauty, hair discrimination, texturism, colonialism