- The Johannesburg High Court found that unproven corruption allegations against Public Investment Corporation chairperson David Masondo were defamatory, as they portrayed him as corrupt without evidence to support the claims.
- Judge Wright clarified that while individuals are free to report suspected crimes to authorities such as the Public Protector or SAPS, publishing allegations widely without proof is not protected by public interest.
- The court granted a final interdict against businessman Ralebala Matone Mampuele and ordered him to pay punitive costs after he continued to repeat the allegations despite being asked to stop.
The High Court in Johannesburg has drawn a clear legal boundary in defamation law, ruling that while people are entitled to report suspected corruption to law enforcement or oversight bodies, they may not freely publish unverified accusations to the public.
The case arose after businessman Ralebala Matone Mampuele made a series of allegations suggesting that David Masondo, the chairperson of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) and Deputy Minister of Finance, was involved in corruption and financial misconduct linked to the PIC.
Masondo approached the court seeking a declaration that the statements were defamatory and an order preventing Mampuele from continuing to publish them.
Judge GC Wright held that the statements were prima faciedefamatory because they portrayed Masondo as corrupt and involved in financial wrongdoing, noting that such allegations naturally damage a person’s reputation.
“The publications are prima facie wrongful and defamatory of Mr Masondo in that they lower him in the eyes of ordinary, right-thinking persons,” the judge said.
Background to the dispute
The dispute arose after the relationship between Mampuele and the PIC deteriorated.
On 9 January 2026, Mampuele sent an email to the Public Protector accusing the PIC’s head of legal of misusing state funds and accepting bribes. He further alleged that the official was collaborating with Masondo.
Mampuele then circulated the same allegations to banks, business contacts, and others. Soon afterwards, a newspaper article appeared reporting claims of financial wrongdoing at the PIC, identifying Mampuele as the source.
Although the article did not mention Masondo directly, the court found that readers could reasonably connect the allegations to him, given his position as chairperson of the PIC board. Further publications followed.
Mampuele later sent another email alleging that the PIC was “attempting to make hundreds of millions from Black entrepreneurs and benefiting a few top politicians and executives within the biggest African pension fund in Africa.”
An online publication later reported that a complaint had been submitted to the Public Protector, accusing Masondo of benefiting improperly from public funds. In a podcast interview published on YouTube, Mampuele also claimed that Masondo was “running a scheme” and was “part and parcel of bankrupting Limpopo Treasury.”
Parties and arguments before the court
Masondo argued that the allegations were false and seriously damaging to his reputation. He asked the court to declare the statements defamatory, compel an admission that they were made recklessly, and prevent further publication.
Mampuele denied that the statements were defamatory, arguing that Masondo was a public figure. He also claimed that exposing corruption and criminal conduct was in the public interest.
Mampuele further claimed that his relationship with the PIC had collapsed after someone at the institution allegedly demanded a bribe from him.
Court finds no evidence supporting the allegations
Judge Wright emphasised that once a defamatory statement has been shown, the person who published it must justify the publication.
In this case, Mampuele relied on the defence that the allegations were true and made in the public interest. However, the court found that this defence failed, as there was no evidence supporting his claims.
“The weak point in Mr Mampuele’s case is that he provides no evidence to prove his allegations,” the court said. The judgment also noted that there were no genuine disputes of fact preventing the court from granting final relief.
Reporting crime is allowed but public accusations are different
A key aspect of the judgment was the court’s distinction between reporting suspected crime to authorities and publicly repeating allegations without proof.
Judge Wright stressed that nothing prevents individuals from reporting suspected wrongdoing to institutions tasked with investigating corruption. “Mr Mampuele cannot be stopped from reporting alleged crime to the proper authorities like the Public Protector and the SAPS,” the judge said.
However, the court found that repeatedly sharing unproven accusations with banks, business contacts, online media, and the public was not justified. “It cannot be held that continued publication to any person other than the authorities mentioned above is in the public interest,” the judgment stated.
Interdict and punitive costs granted
The court ultimately granted a final interdict preventing Mampuele from publishing defamatory statements about Masondo. The order was amended to clarify that Mampuele remains free to report suspected criminal conduct to authorities such as the Public Protector or the police.
Judge Wright also ordered punitive costs against Mampuele, noting that he continued to repeat the allegations, even in his answering affidavit, after being asked to desist.
Get your news on the go. Clickhereto follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
