top of page
Search
Writer's picturerutendo matinyarare

๐—œ๐—ก๐—ก๐—ฆ๐—–๐—ข๐—ฅ ๐˜ƒ๐˜€ ๐—ฅ๐—จ๐—ง๐—˜๐—ก๐——๐—ข ๐—”๐—ฃ๐—ฃ๐—˜๐—”๐—Ÿ ๐—ง๐—ข ๐—•๐—˜ ๐—›๐—˜๐—”๐—ฅ๐—— ๐—œ๐—ก ๐—–๐—ข๐—จ๐—ฅ๐—ง ๐Ÿต๐˜๐—ต-๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฏ ๐—ฆ๐—˜๐—ฃ๐—ง๐—˜๐— ๐—•๐—˜๐—ฅ ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฐ.

Updated: Sep 19


Innscor vs Rutendo contempt appellal will be in the Supreme Court between the 9th and 12th of September 2024
Innscor vs Rutendo contempt appellal will be in the Supreme Court between the 9th and 12th of September 2024

Between September 9th and 13th, 2024, the appeal in the contempt case brought against me by Innscor will be heard by a full bench of the South African Supreme Court, including Justice M Mabesele, Justice B Vally, and Justice L Adams.


The judges will be tasked with addressing the following key issues:


  1. ๐—๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป: Should a South African court hear a case involving a Zimbabwean journalist and civil activist who has raised concerns about the criminal activities of a Zimbabwean company, particularly when those concerns involve food sold in Zimbabwe?


2. ๐—”๐—น๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ด๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—•๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ต ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜ ๐—ข๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜€: Did my writings about Innscor and its food breach the court order issued against me by Judge Swendu, which instructed me not to make any false or defamatory allegations about Innscor?


The judges will need to examine whether my publications were indeed false, defamatory and maliciously intended to damage Innscorโ€™s reputation, or if they were factual, science-based complaints meant to inform the public about the risks associated with consuming Innscorโ€™s products.


Given that the Zimbabwean government has made or amended laws on two occasionsโ€”on March 11, 2024, permitting the import of GMO maize for animal feed only, and on June 16, 2024, amending GMO and gene-editing laws to protect human health and the environment, specifically based on information I have generatedโ€”it suggests that my publications serve a significant public interest.


The judges will also consider whether my publications qualify as defenses against defamation, such as: being fair comment based on information already in the public domain, and whether they were made in the public interest.


3. ๐—•๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ป ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ผ๐—ณ: If the court finds me in contempt and I still refuse to remove the material I posted about Innscor, I could face a custodial sentence. As a result, the judges must ensure that defamation and contempt are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely on a balance of probabilities. They must also consider both mitigating and aggravating circumstances before making a ruling.


The court must be convinced that I deliberately lied about Innscor with the intent to damage their reputation to find me in breach of the court order by Swendu and, therefore, guilty of contempt.


4. ๐—ฅ๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ต๐˜ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—”๐—ฝ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—น: The judges will also decide whether any constitutional issues raised in this case can be appealed to the Constitutional Court.


5. ๐—œ๐—ป๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜: Finally, the court will determine whether I willfully and intentionally disregarded the courtโ€™s instruction not to publish false and defamatory accusations against Innscor.


I believe the case is straightforward because everything I have said about Innscor regarding them selling GMOs containing glyphosate, is based on lab tests and scientific facts that have not been rebutted by Innscor.


Matters such as money laundering and the alleged racism of Zed Koudounaris have been covered in news articles and in a press conference by Temba Mliswa when he was an MP, making my comments on those issues fair comment.


Moreover, the precedent set in IRD Global Limited vs. Global Fund, where Judge Van Nieuwenhuizen AJ (who articulated that Innscorโ€™s second contempt application against me was not urgent on 9 May, 2024) stated that South African courts should not be a court of convenience for foreign legal battles, could have a significant impact on this case.


This precedent suggests that a Zimbabwean company with no operations in South Africa, seeking a gag for a Zimbabwean citizen in South Africa, for raising factual concerns about its food sold in Zimbabwe, may not be appropriate.


I am confident that if the bench is impartial and bases its decision on the law and facts, we should win this case because Innscor has not proven that any of my articles or lab tests are false or defamatory because they are true and they know it. But anything is possible in court.


Written by Rutendo Matinyarare, Chairman of ZASM.

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page