THE Luke Commission has approached the High Court seeking an urgent interdict to stop three individuals, including two of its former employees, from allegedly publishing defamatory and cyberbullying content about the organisation on social media.
The organisation is represented by Nomfundo Hlophe.
TLC cited former employees Nkosinathi Makhava Nhlabatsi and Ntokozo Michael Mabuza as the first and second respondents respectively, while Sydney Maseko is cited as the third respondent.
The organisation is seeking an order interdicting the respondents or anyone acting on their behalf from engaging in alleged harassment, cyberbullying and defamatory publications directed at the organisation through Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter) and other social media platforms.
It also wants the respondents to remove all existing publications within 24 hours of the court order and publish a public retraction stating that the allegations against The Luke Commission were not supported by any judicial finding.
According to the founding affidavit deposed to by Executive Director Echo Nomsa Vanderwal, the organisation has built its reputation over many years through humanitarian and medical work and its credibility is essential for donor funding, public confidence, government partnerships, international collaborations and the delivery of healthcare services.
Vanderwal told the court that Nhlabatsi and Mabuza were employed on fixed-term contracts which were not renewed upon expiry.
She said the first respondent served as care journey junior manager from February 13, 2023 until February 20 while the second respondent worked as a nursing outpatient employee from April 17, 2023.
She alleged that after their contracts expired, the two former employees launched what she described as a sustained smear campaign against the organisation.
“The respondents embarked upon a sustained and deliberate smear campaign of publishing false, malicious and defamatory statements concerning the applicant on various social media platforms,” reads part of the affidavit.
The organisation alleged that the publications accused the hospital of intimidating employees, suppressing labour complaints, providing expired food to staff, failing to issue employment contracts, unfairly dismissing employees and refusing to pay overtime.
According to the affidavit, Nhlabatsi allegedly made a series of Facebook Live broadcasts beginning on June 27 during which he accused the organisation of intimidating workers, interfering with labour investigations and mistreating employees.
The Luke Commission further alleged that on July 4, Nhlabatsi posted that anyone who had never worked for The Luke Commission was fortunate and claimed employees interviewed by the labour commissioner had been unfairly dismissed.
The Luke Commission further alleged that Nhlabatsi questioned the qualifications of its executive management and claimed the organisation was untrustworthy.
Mabuza is accused of publishing similar allegations through Facebook Live videos from July 5 to July 9. According to the application, he alleged that the organisation had violated employees’ rights for years, was arrogant because of donor funding and had unfairly dismissed several employees.
The Luke Commission maintained that all the allegations were false, malicious and unsupported by any factual or legal findings.
Vanderwal argued that while freedom of expression is constitutionally protected, it does not extend to false and defamatory statements.
“Freedom of expression is a fundamental right, but it is not absolute. It does not extend to the publication of false, malicious and defamatory statements,” she stated.
The organisation further submitted that any labour disputes should be determined through the Industrial Court rather than through social media. It argued that the continued publications threatened its reputation and could undermine relationships with international donors, development partners and government institutions.
According to the affidavit, the organisation fears that any loss of donor confidence could jeopardise healthcare and humanitarian programmes provided to thousands of locals and place jobs at risk.
The applicant further argued that damages alone would not adequately compensate it because social media publications spread rapidly and continued to circulate long after they are first posted.
It also seeks leave to validate electronic evidence under the Electronic Evidence Act of 2009 and requests permission for court documents to be served electronically should the respondents prove difficult to locate.
Among the relief sought is an interim rule nisi, an order preventing further publications pending the determination of a defamation action to be instituted within 30 days, as well as costs on the attorney-and-own-client scale.
The matter was postponed to July 27.
