𝗜𝗡𝗡𝗦𝗖𝗢𝗥 𝗧𝗔𝗞𝗘 𝗗𝗢𝗪𝗡 𝗢𝗥𝗗𝗘𝗥 𝗨𝗣𝗛𝗘𝗟𝗗 𝗜𝗡 𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗔𝗟.

Full South African high court bench reject Rutendo appeal of Innscor’s take down order

The full bench of judges in the South African High Court, who were hearing our appeal against the take-down of videos and write-ups before we appeal the contempt decision, has rejected our appeal.

Our appeal argued that the information we published about Innscor was factual and scientific and thus not defamatory, and as such, this information should not be removed as its removal will prejudice the Zimbabwean people and deprive them of information about what they eat.

The ruling stated that the full bench's task was not to determine whether my evidence was true or false, nor was it to determine if the previous defamation court orders were wrong. Instead, their role was to uphold the defamation orders given by the previous courts -including the one we were appealing- in pursuit of rule of law.

Albeit, the judges state as they go, that even through they did not test whether my content was defamatory, they believe that the previous judges who made previous judgements -one of which we were appealing to them- should have done adequate defamation tests to reach the conclusions that they did.

As a result, they upheld the August 20, 2024 ruling that I must remove all content I published on Innscor, while appealing the contempt judgment, if I wished to avoid the consequences. I disagree strongly with the judgment because how can an appeal court constituted to review a decision to enforce a contempt [of defamation orders] ruling, uphold a contempt of the defamation order findings and its enforcement, without testing the publications in question to see if they are indeed false, defamatory, and against public interest?

Nevertheless, my opinion is not a legal opinion and does not trump a court ruling, and as a law-abiding citizen who still intends to do business in South Africa, I have complied and removed all information (including lab results) on Innscor to avoid a criminal conviction and to maintain my freedom to travel and live in South Africa, if I so choose.

The effect of the ruling is that I must now challenge the defamation court orders and have them overturned first, before I can write anything about Innscor, irrespective of whether the evidence is factual or scientific. As a consequence of this ruling, no matter what happens with Innscor, I will not be able to comment even if the information is in the public domain or public interest. In fact, I won’t even so much as be able to compliment them, as the rulings being enforced here, are tantamount to a total gag on me commenting on the company and its owners.

We are still assessing and getting advice on the constitutionality of the ruling and the way forward.