Marieha Hussain, who depicted Sunak and Braverman as coconuts, says only people who do not understand the term find it offensive

Marieha Hussain says she will continue to use the term ‘coconut’ if she attends future rallies. Photograph: Alicia Canter/The Guardian

A teacher who was acquitted of a racially aggravated public order offence after she carried a placard depicting Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman as coconuts said she has no regrets and would continue to use the term in future rallies.

In her first interview since she was found not guilty at Westminster magistrates court last Friday, Marieha Hussain, 37, said there was a lack of cultural understanding and awareness of the term “coconut” and how it is used by diverse communities.

The mother of two, who is nine months pregnant, described how her trial has had an immense impact on her life. She said she lost her job, had to move home and was unable to recognise the early signs of her pregnancy.

Speaking to the Guardian, the psychology teacher described attending a pro-Palestine march in November last year. “From that day to this very day I have had no regret about making that placard, taking it out and defending it,” she said.

In particular, Hussain said those who found the term offensive did not understand it, adding: “It’s really not their term, it’s not their language,” she said.

“They didn’t use it, know it, hear it, understand it growing up and so as an adult they actually don’t have any understanding of what this word really means and they’ve taken it [and] kind of hijacked it and decided what they think it means and are prosecuting it.

“This is what we call targeting ethnic minorities and their intra-communal language,” Hussain added.

In the trial last week, the prosecution claimed “coconut” was a well-known racial slur. “[It has] a very clear meaning – you may be brown on the outside, but you are white on the inside,” said the prosecutor, Jonathan Bryan. “In other words, you’re a ‘race traitor’ – you’re less brown or black than you should be.”

However, Hussain argued “coconut” was “common language, particularly in our culture” and, in reference to the placard, a form of political critique. “It’s something we just grew up with,” she said. “It was flung around easily … I remember my father calling me a coconut in my teen years.”

This was not the first time the term “coconut” has come before the courts in the UK. In 2009, a councillor was convicted of racial harassment for using the term to describe a councillor from a different party.

However, on Friday, the district judge, VanessaLloyd, ruled the placard was “part of the genre of political satire” and the prosecution had “not proved to a criminal standard that it was abusive”.

Describing her decision to depict Braverman and Sunak as “coconuts”, Hussain said her intentions were to critique the politicians for creating and supporting policies which, she said, disproportionately affected minority communities. At the time, Braverman was describing the pro-Palestine protests as “hate marches”.

“I was trying to show that Sunak and Braverman hold the highest offices in our country, they’ve got so much power and influence,” Hussain said. “Calling [pro-Palestine protests] ‘hate marches’, the Rwanda policy, the comments about Pakistani men. That fed into a really dangerous rhetoric that is actually untrue.

“I was trying to highlight actually their racism and their discrimination against an ethnic minority and vulnerable groups,” she added.

Following her acquittal, Hussain said the case and the subsequent media attention has had a substantial impact on her life. In particular, Hussain described feeling “really panicked” after family photos were shared online and details of her family were revealed in tabloid newspapers.

She criticised the conduct of the police during the case as “questionable and confusing”.

For instance, Hussain said several police officers saw the coconut placard during the march in November but “nobody said anything”. It was only after a photograph of Hussain holding the placard was posted online that she was made aware of police interest.

Hussain described the police interview as “one of the most distressing experiences of my life”. She said it was “hostile” and “aggressive”, and said she was yelled at by the detective who was interviewing her.

In response to the claims, the Metropolitan police said it received an email from Hussain’s solicitor following the interview but a line manager found no issues with the interviewing officer’s conduct and that he did not shout or yell. They said no formal complaints have been made about the matter.

When asked whether she would use a similar coconut placard again at a future pro-Palestine rally, Hussain said: “Yes. It’s political satire, it’s protected speech and I have absolutely no reason not to carry that placard around again.

“It’s been explained what it is and what it means,” she said. “The most important thing is that, at its highest level, political critique is a really important element of addressing our politicians and its protected speech. I’ve been acquitted. It’s absolutely completely legal for me to carry that placard around.”

Now that the trial is over, Hussain said she is focused on her pregnancy and family but is unsure of her next steps. “I’ve got this wider issue of free speech and Palestine, I’m really passionate about that so I don’t know what the future holds,” she said. “I feel that all doors are open for me now.”

A spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service said: “Our prosecutors reviewed this case carefully and concluded there was enough evidence for it to be presented to a court.

“The defendant has been found not guilty and we respect the judge’s decision.”