25/07/2025
DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER AND THE CONSTITUTION
The Constitution and POPIA does not protect a person who posts defamatory material concerning another on social media. The right to freedom of expression, like all rights, has limits.
BACKGROUND FACTS:
- Mr Harman, is a farm owner, and owner of company called Redlex. Mr Harman had secured a loan from Land Bank for Redlex, which he signed as surety. Redlex fell into arrears in the annual instalment payments, was unable to pay its debt and was finally liquidated on 11 July 2019.
- Mr Strydom, an attorney and insolvency practitioner, was instructed by the Land Bank to institute legal proceedings to recover the debt. On 15 May 2020, Land Bank obtained a judgment for more than R3 million plus interest against Mr Harman.
- Thereafter, Mr Harman posted on his Facebook account accusing Mr Strydom and Land Bank officials of unethical and impartial conduct.
PROTECTION ORDER AGAINST MR HARMAN:
- On 29 June 2022, Mr Strydom obtained a protection order prohibiting Mr Harman from electronic harassment and posting defamatory material on his Facebook .
- On delivery of the protection order, Mr Harman denied the police officers entry into his house.
- On the same day, he proceeded to post photographs of the messenger and police officers. Mr Harman accused Mr Strydom of being a thief and being involved in various scandals. Under his Facebook post, there was hateful comments erupted from various individuals, with some even issuing death threats directed at Mr Strydom.
URGENT EX PARTE APPLICATION BY MR STRYDOM
- Mr Strydom lodged an urgent ex parte application in the Mahikeng High Court. In the founding affidavit Mr Strydom stated that Mr Harman together with other debtors of the bank went on a smear campaign defaming him and also inciting violence against him. He further stated that the statements made by Mr Harman are defamatory in nature and do cause irreparable harm to his good reputation both as an attorney and as a person
- He submitted that even after the service of the protection order Mr Harman continued to harass and defame him on social media, and his defamatory statements were not made in good faith and are not supported by any evidence.
- On 13 March 2023, the high court, found that Mr Harman and his friends and followers of his Facebook account, posted and published offensive and life-threatening defamatory statements of and concerning Mr Strydom.
- Mr Harman was ordered to remove his Facebook post and reveal the identities of the friends who had made threatening defamatory remarks against Mr Strydom.
APPEAL AT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL (SCA) BY MR HARMAN
- Mr Harman made an appeal at the SCA against the fact that he had to reveal the identities of those who published threats against Mr Strydom. He claimed that the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) prohibited him from sharing such details and also submitted that his friends excised their constitutional rights to freedom of expression.
- The SCA found that the High Court order was not unlawful, as no provision of POPIA or the Constitution protected the dissemination of life threatening and defamatory material of and concerning another, on a social media platform.
- The SCA further held that the right to freedom of expression, like all rights, has limits. The one obvious limit of a right is when its exercise encroaches or intrudes into the domain of another person’s right. The postings on Facebook concerning Mr Strydom, his right to personal safety from harm and loss of life were threatened and his rights to dignity as a person and to his reputation as a professional, were assailed.
- The Court found that Mr Strydom was entitled to the list of persons responsible for such unlawful acts, in order to vindicate his rights, if he deems it fit to do so.
At LA Nompumza Attorneys, we do assist with defamation of character matters, and we ensure your rights are protected.
Contact information:
🌐 Website: www.lanompumzalaw.co.za
📞 Phone: 0799508309
📲WhatsApp: 0634710493
📧 E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected]
