Experience shows that the moment disciplinary action looms, some employees abandon the real dispute and head straight for their keyboards, hoping a social-media storm will drown out the facts. That strategy backfired spectacularly for two former Liberty Group staff members, whose digital tirades have now been branded defamatory by the High Court. The case of Liberty Group v Chonco and Another is a timely warning: freedom of expression ends where unsubstantiated allegations begin.
The Facts behind the Fury
After parting ways with Liberty, branch manager Siyabonga Chonco and contracted financial adviser Siyakutanda Mafuna took to Facebook, X (Twitter), LinkedIn and WhatsApp with a barrage of claims: corruption, sexism, abuse—even calling Liberty a "scam" and "trash". They dragged Standard Bank (a Liberty shareholder) into the fray and singled out executives as "woman abusers".
Neither could produce evidence. What they did produce was plenty of reputational risk—for themselves.
The Court's Response: "Prove it or Remove it"
Judge Mathenjwa had little patience for rhetoric unsupported by facts. To defend a defamatory statement, one must either prove its truth and public-interest value or show it is fair comment anchored in accurate information.
- "Liberty is a scam": Suggests fraud; no proof offered.
- "Executive is a woman abuser": Implies criminality; again, no proof.
- Claim that termination was a feminist conspiracy: labelled an insult rather than an argument.
Contradictions in the respondents' own narratives (for example, admitting Mafuna was exonerated at a disciplinary hearing yet still crying foul) further eroded credibility.
Social Media ≠ CCMA
The judgment underlines a simple principle: if you believe you were wronged, the CCMA or Labour Court is the proper venue – your newsfeed is not. Posting sensational accusations may feel cathartic, but it exposes you to a defamation suit and, as here, an interdict requiring deletion of all offending content.
"Fair" Comment has Rules
Opinion may be protected, but only when:
- It is clearly identifiable as opinion, and
- It rests on stated facts that are true or privileged.
Inflammatory labels like "criminal" and "trash" failed that test.
The court granted a final interdict compelling Chonco and Mafuna to scrub every defamatory post and barred them from publishing fresh content about Liberty, its employees or Standard Bank. They must also foot Liberty's legal bill. Continuous postings after "promising to stop" convinced the court future harm was likely.
What this means for Employers
- Act promptly. Don't assume defamatory posts will fade away – seek legal relief before the damage spreads.
- Document the offence. Preserve screenshots and timestamps; they are invaluable evidence.
- Know your remedies. An urgent interdict can halt publication, force removal and shift costs to the offender.
- Educate your workforce. Clear policies on social-media conduct reduce the risk of rogue posts in the first place.
Final Word
Baseless online attacks need not go unanswered. Liberty Group v Chonco confirms that employers – and indeed any organisation – can and should defend their reputation when defamation masquerades as grievance. In the digital age, accountability travels just as fast as a tweet.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
