REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETOR IA
CASE Number: 121445/2025
( 1) REPO RTABLE: 'te$/NO
(2) OF INTER EST TO O THER JUD GES :
YES/~
(3) REVISED: YES/~()
2025 .2.0/C?..f!... ........ .
In the matters between: -
FIKILE APRIL MBALULA
and
ANELE MDA
BAQWA,J
JUDGMENT
APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
1

Introduction
[1] This is an urgent application for an interdict and declarator for an order declaring
that the allegations made by the Respondent on her Twitter feed about the applicant
are defamatory and false, and that the Respondent's unlawful publication of the
statement was and continues to be unlawful.
[2] The applicant a_lso seeks an order directing the respondent to remove the statement
within 24 hours from all her social media platforms including the respondent's twitter
accounts and among other ancillary orders directing the respondent within 24 hours
to publish a notice on her media platforms on which the statement had been published,
in which she unconditionally retracts and apologises for the allegations made about
the applicant in the statement.
[3] Further, the applicant seeks an order restraining and interdicting the respondent
from publishing any statement that says or implies that he was directly or indirectly
complicit in the killing of one Wandile Bozwana and that the respondent pay the costs
of this application on an attorney and client scale.
Urgency
[4] The applicant submits, and I accept, that the matter is urgent based on the present
and continuous harm to dignity that he cannot reasonably be expected to endure with
the attendant anxiety and embarrassment brought about by the continued violation of
his Dignitas and his rights.
[5] He further submits that there is ongoing and prolonged reputational harm,
humiliation, and indignity accompanying the respondent's acts, aided by the
2

continuous accessibility of the tweets on X . This results in harm justifying the urgent
relief sought.
Issues to be determined
[6] The issues to be determined are whether the application is urgent and whether the
requirements for an interdict have been satisfied.
[7] This court also has to determine whether the statements complained about are
defamatory and whether or not the applicant should bear the costs of the application.
Applicant's Profile
[8] The applicant was elected as the Secretary General (SG) of the African National
Congress in December 2022, and before that, he was a member of Parliament (MP)
in the N ational Assembly (MP) from 2009-2023. Prior to that, in May 2009, he had
been appointed by the president of the Republic of South Africa as Deputy Minister of
Police and later elevated to M inister of Sports and Recreation from 2010-2017. In
2017-2018, he was appointed as M inister of Police. He was also appointed as the
Minister of Transport from May 2019 to 6 March 2023, until his appointment as SG of
the ANC .
[9] The applicant has also tendered evidence regarding his public profile and a strong
social media presence in that he commands approximately 3.2 million followers on X
(formerly Twitter) and approximately 713,000 (Seven Hundred and Thirteen Thousand
on lnstagram. The number of followers and likes on these platforms sparks
conversations wh ich get replies and tend to stay visible for longer in the public space.
3

The Respondent's Profile
[1 OJ The Respondent portrays herself as a "Global Speaker Panelist TV & Radio
Commentator Activist," and she commands a considerable following on Twitter and
lnstagram in the order of 39,600 and 11 ,800, respectively. This is confirmed by
objective evidence.
Background
(11) On or about October 2015, a prominent businessman, Wandile Bozwana (the
deceased), was brutally murdered whilst driving his motor vehicle in Gauteng. The
senseless killing of the deceased was well documented in the media.
[12) His killers were arrested, charged and convicted and eventually sentenced to 30
years.
[13] The applicant not only knew the deceased, but they considered each other as
friends who socialised together during his lifetime. Not only was he saddened by his
brutal murder, but he also spoke at his funeral and conveyed his condolences to the
family.
The defamatory remarks
[14] On or about 7 July 2025 the respondent published a statement on Twitter in
response to a statement by the applicant reflecting on various issues in the country
titled "Replying to Commissioner Mkhwanazi allegations."
[15] The respondent published the following words in English and vernacular:
"Wena igama lakho liyavela ekubulaweni kuka Wandile Bozwana. The question
still stands what you were doing in Sandton with the guys who were driving the
4

car that followed Wandile Bozwana and whose occupants shot and instantly
killed Bozwana in 2015, around Menlyn. Awusitsheli lokho! Kwa wena ufanelwe
yijele qha."
[16] The purport of these words loosely translated means that applicant's name
appears amongst those who are or were complicit or accomp lices in the killing of the
deceased. The respondent ends her Tweets with a phrase that respondent cannot
possibly respond to her (and others) and that he ought to be incarcerated in jail,
supposedly for his alleged involvement in the murder of the deceased.
[17] Moments after publishing the said remarks, respondent waxed lyrical about the
issue by publishing a further Tweet where she stated the following:
"Imagine doubting what Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi said because Fikile
Mbalula cast doubt on him. Mbalula has not yet explained why was he seen in
Sandton with the occupants of the car that followed Wandile Bozwana , who then was
shot at Menlyn in 2015."
The Law
[18] In Professor Jonathan Burchell's1 Principle of Delict he defines defamation as the
"unlawful intentional publication of defamatory matter referring to the plaintiff which
causes his or her reputation to be impaired." In Mantashe v Zuma 2 the following was
stated:
"There is no reason why [the applicant] ought to submit himself to further indignities
and assaults on his dignity before this matter can be determined. Dignity is not only
1 Principles of D elict (1993) at page 152.
2 (2025/094050) [2025] ZA G P JHC 697 (16 July202 5) at para 37.
5

a value fundamental to the constitution but is also a justifiable and enforceable right
that may be respected and protected."
[19) It is trite that ordinarily, defamation claims ought to be brought by way of action
proceedings due to the necessity of oral evidence in the assessment of damages , but
a hybrid approach may be adopted where circumstances and facts demand as was
done by Wilson J in Ndlozi v Media 24 tla Daily Sun and Others. 3
[20] In the present case however the applicant seeks an order for an interdict and that
quantum for damages be referred for oral evidence w hich I accept as a reasonable
approach taking into account the facts of this matter.
Persistent Injurious Conduct
[21] The applicant submits that respondent has been persistent in her defamatory
conduct despite being warned to desist therefrom and that this has been evidenced
by persistent X posts despite having been served w ith papers in connection with this
application.
[22] The applicant argues that by so doing the respondent is displaying intransigent
yet relentless behaviour which ma kes a mockery of the applicant's resort to the court
for relief.
[23) The applicant tenders' evidence regarding an insulting post on X dated 26-28 July
2025 after the application was served on her which make insolent utterances which
attracted comments of a similar nature from her affirming and agreeable group of
followers.
3 (21 /25599) [2023] ZA GP JHC 1040.
6

[24] She posts as follows "Cowards die many times before their death! Mbalula might
have SILENCED+ ELIMINATED some into wilderness, they were not Anele Mda , and
when you come for me, I duly present myself and respond accordingly. When some
political careers go up in flames, don't blame me! Bring it on."
[25] The conduct referred to above seems to emphasise the exigency of the matter as
it appears to prolong an enduring humiliation and defamation of the applicant.
[26] Logic would suggest that after referral of the matter to this court the respondent
would show deference to this court on the basis that the matter was sub-judice and
change her conduct. Instead, her sheer display of obduracy show disregard for the
applicant's right to dignity which seems to suggest that respondent has thrown all care
to the wind.
[27] The continued indignity which the applicant has suffered, so the applicant argues,
bears a negative effect an the extent that being a prominent figure, he could be
adjudged w ith a measure of suspicion by his peers thus lowering trust and confidence
in him.
[28] The facts in the present matter are comparable to those in EFF v Manuel 4 in
which the Supreme Court of Appeal stated that:
"The position was made worse in regard to the continuing publication of the
statement after March 2019, when Mr Manuel had said that the facts were false and
demanded a retraction and its removal."
• (2021) ALL SA 623 (SCA); 2021 (3) SA .
7

[29] Similarly in the present case the respondent has been informed of the falsity of
the allegations in question, but she is obdurate and persists in her conduct.
[30] In EFF v Manuel the SCA further stated "The more serious the charge, the more
the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true. The
respondent has more than 12 000 followers on Twitter, and he wields considerable
public influence, which in the absence of substantial facts untruthful allegations can
and have caused serious damage to the dignity of the applicant."
[31] The situation in the present case cannot be viewed any differently from that
described above. The statements published by the respondent satisfy the basic
defamatory content.
[32] The applicant submits that no defences avail the respondents that are usually
proffered in similar cases, namely, truth, public interest and fair comment. In EFF v
Manuel the SCA held that "A defendant relying on truth and public interest must plead
and prove that the statement is substantially true and was published in the public
interest. 5"
Respondent's Case
[33] Regarding the post by the respondents dated 8 July 2025 she alleges that she is
not the original author of the story which links the applicant to the murder case of
Bozwana. She refers to an article published by The Citizen.6 It can be accepted with
certainty that reliance by the respondent on the said article dated 29 September 2019
is fallacious as the article on its own expresses the views and opinion of a journalist
5 EFF v M anuel at para 37.
6 https/www.c itizen.eo.za/news/south-african/crime/Fikile-Mbalula-a-person-of-interest-in-wandile-
bozwana -murder.
8

and does not provident tangible legal proof of complicity on the applicant's part given
the public and incontrovertible fact that the perpetrators of the evil deeds were
arrested, tried and convicted. That the applicant was not implicated demonstrates the
lack of veracity in any suggestion otherwise. In the circumstances the only inference
possible is that the article perpetuates falsehoods as there is no confirmation of the
allegation in the publication.
[34] In Tsedu v Lekota7 the Supreme Court of Appeal held that
"[a] person who repeats or adopts and republishes a defamatory statement will be
held to have published the statement. The writer of a letter published in a
newspaper is prima facie liable for the publication of it, but so are the editor, printer,
publisher and proprietor."
[36] It is instructive to read what the respondent says in her answering affidavit. She
makes an admission that the information obtained from the "Citizen article (AM 3)
was never verified by her when she says at paragraph 49: "It is clear that I do not
purport to have factual knowledge as to whether he was liable for the murder of Mr
Bozwana nor do I state that he was ."
[35] Yet she goes on to state a paragraph 50 as follows "I had reached a conclusion
that Mr Mbalula must be liable to one degree or the other for some criminal conduct
and/or corruption given the frequency his name is reported around crime and
corruption." The respondent is in a manner of speaking letting the cat out of the bag
when she tweeted what forms the subject of this application when she suggested
to her followers that the applicant ought to be in jail. This was the "Citizen"
1 2009 (4) SA 372 (SCA).
9

information conveyed to the twitter world without any verification. Notably, the portion
of applicant having to go to jail is the respondent's own invention.
[36] She further confirms her views at paragraph 52 when she says:
"Where there is smoke there must be fire hence my opinion that he deserves jail
time. I find it improbable that he is always embroiled in criminal controversy and
is not guilty in each instance." She remains unrepentant and obdurate.
[37] The defences of 'truth' and public 'interest' are not available to a person who
does not plead that what she published was substantially true. The respondent
herein falls into this category,
[38] What cannot be denied is that the respondent's defamatory remarks constituted
an unabated assault on his reputation in the face of objective evidence of the killers of
the deceased having been dealt with by our courts. This shows malice and ill-will
harboured by her utterances even in her answering affidavit referred to above.
[39] In the circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the Tweets published on a public
platform were unlawful and that they were about the applicant.
lnterdictory Relief
[40] The requirements for a final interdict are set out in Setlogelo V Setloge/08 which
was cited with approval in the matter of Pilane and Another v Pilane and Others. •9
[41] An applicant must satisfy the court regarding the existence of the following
requirements:
8 1914 A D 221.
9 2013 (4) BCL R 431 (CC ).
10

41.1 A clear right;
41.2 An injury committed or reasonably apprehended;
41 .3 There must not be similar protection available to the applicant by any
ordinary means or remedy.
[42] In terms of section 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa:
"Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and
protected. Evidently the applicant as a public figure with 3.2 million followers on
X has suffered and continuous to suffer harm to his reputation, both in his
personal and professional capacities through the widespread dissemination of
the impugned statements."
[43] Injury committed or reasonable apprehended.
43.1 The respondent's tweets were published to approximately 37,000
followers and concomitantly accessible to a cascading broader audience.
They caused and continue to cause reputational harm for as long as they
remain on the platform and are not retracted.
43.2 The applicant, who is a father, and a husband reasonably apprehends,
harm to his family through stigma and reputational damage.
[44] Absence of alternative remedy
44.1 In the circumstances, an interdict is the only effective remedy to compe l
the removal of the statements and prevent further publication, pending
any future or alternative damages claim
11

44.2 The applicant has no alternative remedy to the persisting injury as
respondent refuses to apologise or take down the defamatory
statement from her social med ia platforms.
Costs
[45) This case could have been averted if the Respondent had desisted from her
conduct upon being requested to do. She has however been adamant to continue with
her injurious conduct. The costs order which I make below is therefore justifiable.
[46) In the result I make the following order:
Order --
1. The forms and procedures for the Uniform Ru les of Court are dispensed with
and this matter is heard as being urgent in term of Rule 6 (12) (a).
2. The allegations, made by the Respondent on her Twitter feed about the
Applicant, are declared to be defamatory and false.
3. The Respondent's unlawful publication of the statements, which continue, are
declared to be unlawful.
4. The Respondent is directed to remove the statements, within 24 hours, from all
her social media platforms, including the Respondent's Tw itter accounts.
5. The Respondent is directed, within 24 hours, to publish a notice on all her social
media platforms, on which the statements had been published, and is directed
to unconditionally retract and apologise for the allegations made about the
applicant in the statements.
12

6. The Respondent is restrained and interdicted from publishing any statement
that says or implies that the applicant was directly or indirectly complicit in the
killing of Wand ile Bozwana.
7. The Respondent is directed to pay costs on an attorney and clients' scale.
Date of hearing: 15 August 2025
Date of judgment: 20 August 2025
A ppearance
On behalf of the Applicants
Instructed by
behalf of the Respondents
Instructed by
S LBYBAQWA
HIGH COURT
GAUTE N G DIVISION , PRETOR IA
Adv S Sethene
smanga@lawsethene.com
LS Mashifane Inc
Adv M Mfesane Ka-Siboto
zondiwe@mabuzas .co.za
Mabuza Attorneys Inc
13