An online “journalist” and blogger was ordered by the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, to pay R35 000 in damages for the defamatory statements he made online about a senior pastor of the worldwide Omega Fire Ministries.
Apostle Johnson Suleman initially claimed R10 million in damages from Solomon Ashoms of Johannesburg.
The judge warned that the judgment should be a wake-up call for self-proclaimed journalists who felt no need to restrain themselves on social media.
Suleman earlier issued summons against Ashoms, claiming that he had defamed his good name and character and suffered damages as a result.
Ashoms elected not to defend the action, which resulted in the matter being heard by the court on a default basis.
In March 2021, in Johannesburg, Ashoms, via his social media handle and programme known as Solom’s Temple, made a presentation on his YouTube channel, which was shared live on his Facebook account, Twitter and Instagram handles. It was titled “Apostle Johnson Suleman got a corrupt apology”.
A month later, Ashoms, via Solomon’s Temple, apparently released a damning publication, titled “Johnson Suleman bribed Pastor with $60 000 for apology”.
Suleman said the publications were malicious and fallacious and contained remarks capable of damaging his and mega Fire Ministries’ reputation and right to a good name.
He said the defamatory nature of Ashom’s publications were wrongful and unlawful as he had not committed the things the defendant had accused him of.
Suleman said Ashom called him unprintable names, as evinced through his social media outlets.
He testified that he had sustained injuries, including defamation of his character, his right to his good name and his dignity had been impaired to the tune of R10m.
Acting Judge B Ford said the court had only Suleman’s uncontested version. The judge added that the court has no hesitation in accepting the credibility of Suleman’s version that the publications defamed him and his ministry.
While the judgment did not say anything about the context in which the posts were made, the judge said: “The allegations that the plaintiff allegedly sexually abused actresses appear to have been incorporated in the default judgment affidavit, but does not accord with the pleadings in the main action. This does not, in my view, detract from the plaintiff’s pleading case.”
Judge Ford said social media provided fertile ground for the mushrooming of self-acclaimed journalists, some of whom, with a YouTube Channel under their belts, considered themselves, at times foolishly so, journalists of the highest order, unfettered, unrestrained and accountable to nobody.
“It is precisely the lack of regulation that seems to justify the relentless publishing of defamatory content, without any real or significant consequences, that makes this practice rather attractive. This judgment will serve as a wake-up call for those wrapped up in that folly,” the judge said in finding that Suleman was defamed.
In deciding how much damages should be awarded, the judge said the claim advanced by Suleman “does not come anywhere near R10m”.
“In making the compensatory award in favour of the plaintiff, I have considered the plaintiff’s standing, the platforms utilised by the defendant to publish the defamatory statements about the plaintiff, the widespread appeal that the defendant’s publications attract, the scepticism often associated with social media publications.”
The judge also considered the fact that Ashom has not made any attempt to apologise for the defamatory posts.
Judge Ford, however, added that in respect of Suleman asking for an apology to be published in a Nigerian newspaper, that was not competent for the court to grant.
Apart from having to pay R35 000 in damages, Ashom was ordered to detract the defamatory publications and publish a letter of apology to the plaintiff in a South African national newspaper.
Pretoria News