ELIJAH FIRE'S PUBLIC APOLOGY TO APOSTLE JUSTICE

MBABANE – Prophet Mkhemetelo Muzi Mkhatshwa, also known as Elijah Fire, has offered a public apology for defaming Apostle Justice Dlamini.

The apology comes after the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the High Court per Judge Zonke Magagula who ordered Mkhatshwa to compensate the Worship Centre International founder, Apostle Justice Dlamini, E500 000 for defamation. Mkhatshwa was also ordered to pay 75 per cent of the apostle’s legal fees. Judge Magagula had also ordered Mkhatshwa to apologise and that the apology be published in a prominent space, within seven days of the judgment. In the Supreme Court, Mkhatshwa’s appeal, citing that the amount he was ordered to pay was excessive, was heard by Judge Magriet van der Walt together with Judge Nkululeko Hlophe and Judge Mbutfo Mamba.

Judgment

In the Supreme Court judgment, Judge Magriet noted that Mkhatshwa had at the time still not apologised to the apostle. In his apology titled Apology to Apostle Justice, Mkhatshwa states: “I, Prophet Elijah Fire tender an unconditional apology and retraction of the offending utterances that were made in two audio recordings, which were never meant for the public domain but unfortunately leaked to the public domain without my knowledge nor intention. The audios were uncalled for and are regretted in their entirety,” reads Mkhatshwa’s apology and retraction.

In the Supreme Court judgment, the court considered that Mkhatshwa admitted liability for defamation but contested the damages. “His failure to issue a public apology and retraction, despite promising to do so, aggravated the damages,” said Judge Van der Walt. The court also considered Dlamini’s large audience, including church congregations, radio listeners and online followers.

It was noted that the defamatory material had spread beyond Eswatini’s borders. The court found no evidence to support the claim that the apology was conditional on Apostle Dlamini not pursuing legal action. The case arose from WhatsApp audio recordings in which Prophet Mkhatshwa, the founder of Hope Restoration Church, made damaging allegations against Apostle Dlamini, a fellow church leader. These included claims that Apostle Dlamini had bribed a journalist to publish negative articles and that a domestic worker had witnessed a snake with a human head and hair in his residence.

The High Court’s initial award of E500 000 was challenged by Prophet Mkhatshwa as excessive. The Supreme Court, however, found no grounds to overturn the ruling, highlighting the severity of the defamatory statements and their wide dissemination via social media. The Supreme Court’s judgment reaffirmed key legal principles regarding defamation, particularly in the digital age. It confirmed that a person can be held liable for defamation even if they did not directly publish the material, provided they knew or should have reasonably foreseen its distribution. This principle is particularly relevant to social media, where content spreads rapidly.

The judgment acknowledged the unique challenges of online defamation, noting the difficulty in accurately measuring the reach of defamatory content and its potential for indefinite retention and sharing. The court stressed that while previous awards offer guidance, each case must be assessed on its own merits, considering factors such as the plaintiff’s character and status, the nature and extent of the publication, and the severity of the imputation. The court indicated it would only intervene if the lower court failed to exercise its jurisdiction judicially.

In cases where the plaintiff’s initial claim is deemed ‘astronomical’, the court may order a proportional recovery of costs, rather than the full amount, to prevent defendants from being unduly burdened.

The Supreme Court highlighted that Prophet Mkhatjwa admitted liability for defamation but contested the damages. His failure to issue a public apology and retraction, despite promising to do so, aggravated the damages. The court also considered Apostle Dlamini’s large audience, including church congregations, radio listeners and online followers.

It was noted that the defamatory material had spread beyond Eswatini’s borders. The court found no evidence to support the claim that the apology was conditional on Apostle Dlamini not pursuing legal action. This judgment serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of defamatory statements, particularly online.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: