- The judge dismissed Theuwedi Trading Enterprise and Nakampe Aubrey Moliwa’s request to force News24 to take down the investigative article, stating it was not defamatory.
- The court determined that while the reporting may have raised suspicion or discomfort, it did not explicitly accuse the applicants of murder, corruption, or criminal behaviour.
- Judge Du Plessis emphasised that reporting on public-interest issues such as municipal tenders, accountability, and alleged irregularities deserves strong constitutional protection.
The High Court in Johannesburg has rejected Theuwedi Trading Enterprise and Nakampe Aubrey Moliwa’s attempt to make News24 remove an investigative article. The judge ruled that the article was not defamatory.
The urgent application followed the publication of a News24 investigation into Ekurhuleni’s chemical toilet contracts and broader concerns surrounding the murder of municipal chief auditor Mpho Mafole. Mafole had looked into procurement irregularities before he was killed.
Theuwedi Trading Enterprise, which was awarded part of the contract, argued that the article’s wording, structure, imagery, and placement in News24’s HUNTED investigative series suggested that the company and its sole director, Moliwa, were corrupt, unlawfully involved in the tender process, and somehow linked to Mafole’s murder. That argument did not succeed.
Judge WJ du Plessis found that while the article may have cast doubt on Theuwedi Trading Enterprise and raised uncomfortable questions, it did not clearly make the serious claims the applicants alleged.
In one of the more straightforward parts of the judgment, Judge Du Plessis stated, “The article may create unease. It may cast a shadow. It may suggest that the applicants are part of a troubling procurement story. But it does not clearly accuse them of complicity in murder. It does not cross the boundary of legally unacceptable speech.”
Claims tested in court
Theuwedi Trading Enterprise and Moliwa claimed the article suggested that the company was not a legitimate business, that it was unlawfully awarded lucrative municipal contracts, that Moliwa was corrupt, and that both had motives or involvement in Mafole’s murder.
The court disagreed with the claim that the article implied the company did not exist. It pointed out that the report clearly identified Theuwedi Trading Enterprise as a registered company. It named Moliwa as its sole director, referred to company records, and detailed the substantial municipal payments made to it over several years.
Judge Du Plessis wrote, “The article treats the company as an existing commercial actor, which cannot, in any sensible, objective reading, also convey that it does not exist at all.”
Regarding the allegation that the article painted Moliwa as a criminal, fraudster, or thief, the court found that News24 made no direct accusation of criminal conduct. While words like “shadowy” and mentions of “murk” may have raised suspicion, the judgment held that such language represented journalistic evaluation and scepticism based on disclosed facts, including concerns over the company’s operational footprint and compliance with tender requirements.
Judge Du Plessis said, “At most, the article raises suspicion and suggests this should be examined. But it does not clearly imply that the applicants committed a specific crime.”
The murder implication argument
The most significant complaint focused on the article’s inclusion in the HUNTED series, which investigates Mafole’s murder.
The applicants argued that placing their company in that broader context implied they had a motive to silence Mafole due to his investigation into procurement irregularities.
The court accepted that readers may understand that businesses with threatened commercial interests might have a motive to end an investigation. However, that did not amount to an accusation of murder.
Judge Du Plessis made that distinction clear. “Every person whose interests are threatened by an investigator has a motive to wish that investigation to end. It does not mean that a person acted on that motive,” the judge said.
The judgment further noted that the article did not claim that Theuwedi Trading Enterprise or Moliwa killed Mafole, arranged his killing, funded it, or acted with those accused of the crime. No factual link was drawn between them and the person arrested in connection with the murder.
“The article does not say that either applicant killed Mr Mafole. It does not say that either applicant arranged the killing, paid for it, or acted together with those who committed it,” Judge Du Plessis said.
Public interest reporting protected
The judgment strongly supported investigative journalism on issues involving public funds and government accountability.
Judge Du Plessis said the public has a constitutional interest in reporting that examines municipal spending, procurement integrity, and the murder of an official who investigated alleged irregularities.
“The public has an interest in an article that investigates the allocation of money, the integrity of a public procurement process, and the fate of an official who investigated and reported on irregularities in that process,” Judge Du Plessis said.
He added, “Investigative journalists who uphold those values by providing information that allows citizens to hold government accountable perform a critical role in a constitutional democracy.”
The application was dismissed, and Theuwedi Trading Enterprise and Moliwa were ordered to pay Media24’s legal costs, including the fees for two legal representatives.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
