OVER the past week, social media has been abuzz after Member of Parliament Energy Mutodi posted potentially defamatory allegations against Finance ministry permanent secretary George Guvamatanga on his X (formerly Twitter) account.
Mutodi claimed that the Parliament of Zimbabwe had received “agonising reports” that Guvamatanga was receiving between 5% and 10% for every Treasury payment, further alleging that the permanent secretary had accumulated over a billion dollars and become “the richest civil servant”.
This statement is potentially defamatory, as any reasonable reader would likely conclude that Guvamatanga had amassed wealth through corrupt practices. In essence, the post implied that the senior official was corrupt.
The rise of social media has transformed nearly everyone into a publisher, enabling individuals to disseminate messages instantly and widely. Without traditional gatekeeping, many users inadvertently cross legal lines, sometimes in pursuit of attention or influence and end up defaming others.
Defamation refers to the publication of false statements that unjustly damage another person’s reputation. For a claim of defamation to succeed, the statement must be false, published to a third party, identify the person being referred to and cause harm to their reputation, whether by damaging relationships, business prospects or social standing.
A general or vague statement, such as “that guy at the Ministry of Finance is corrupt”, might not qualify as defamation because it fails to identify the individual concerned. Truth, however, remains a complete defence, if a statement is true, it cannot be defamatory.
A notable local precedent is the case of lawyer and politician Fadzayi Mahere versus Petina Gappah (HH 364-24), decided by Justice Joseph Mafusire. Mahere argued that Gappah had published a series of false tweets suggesting that she gained admission to the University of Zimbabwe through her father’s influence and that Gappah had written the essay that secured Mahere’s entry to Cambridge University.
Gappah could have relied on the defence of truth and public interest, given Mahere’s standing as a public figure, but she failed to produce any supporting evidence.
- ‘Killer’ soldier granted bail
- Eight’s groups in joint fight against intersectional discrimination
- Intensify the fight against GBV: Japanese ambassador
- Letter from America: The death of the Zimbabwe dollar shows the King has no clothes
Keep Reading
The court ruled in Mahere’s favour, awarding her US$18 000 in damages plus legal costs. Even though Gappah later retracted her statements, the court held that a retraction alone does not constitute a full defence, although it can mitigate damages.
Defendants in defamation cases may raise several defences, including truth, fair comment and lack of malice or qualified privilege. The defence of qualified privilege often arises when statements are made in the discharge of a duty, the exercise of a right or the furtherance of a legitimate public interest.
When allegations involve public officials, particularly those holding positions of trust, issues of public interest become central. Courts have repeatedly emphasised the need to balance individual dignity with freedom of expression, reasoning that a free press is essential in keeping the public informed about matters of public concern.
This principle applies to allegations of corruption against, which fall squarely within the realm of public interest.
Once a defendant raises the defence of qualified privilege, the burden shifts to the complainant to prove that the statement was motivated by malice or exceeded the limits of privilege.
In the case of Senderayi v. NewsDay (HC 3677/2001), Justice Erica Ndewere noted that the onus rests with the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defence of qualified privilege does not apply because the statement was made in bad faith or went beyond the bounds of privilege.
Senderayi, the director of Health for Kwekwe City Council, was accused of corruption in a story published in the NewsDay. He filed a US$50 000 lawsuit but failed to prove that the story was false or even motivated by malice.
Similarly, in Thomas v. Murimba (2001 (1) ZLR 209, H), Justice Moses Chinhengo held that the defence applies when statements are published in the discharge of a duty, the exercise of a right or the pursuit of a legitimate interest.
As a legislator, Mutodi could argue that he was performing his oversight role by raising possible corruption concerns about a senior government official, thereby invoking public interest and qualified privilege.
However, such a defence would collapse if it can be shown that his post was motivated by malice, made without factual basis or designed to injure Guvamatanga’s reputation.
Even if the claims turn out to be false, Mutodi could still plead lack of animus injuriandi, the absence of intent to cause harm, arguing that he genuinely believed the information to be credible and that publishing it served the public interest.
Defamation can also occur through the use of incorrect images, such as attaching the wrong photograph to a factual story. In such cases, as in verbal or written defamation, intent and accuracy remain central. When a person discovers they have published false or defamatory material, they can issue a prompt retraction and apology of equal prominence to the original publication. Although this does not eliminate liability, it can reduce damages and demonstrate the absence of malice.
As communication increasingly shifts to social media, the boundary between free speech and defamation becomes ever more fragile.
Individuals must exercise caution and responsibility when sharing information, especially when it concerns allegations of corruption or misconduct. Understanding the legal implications of defamation and the importance of truthfulness not only protects others’ reputations but also safeguards one’s own legal standing.
In an era where every citizen can publish to a global audience, verifying facts before posting is not merely advisable, it is essential to preserving both justice and integrity in public discourse.
Mhlanga is a law student at the University of Zimbabwe.
