DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS MADE IN RESPECT OF  THE FIRST LADY OF NAMIBIA

DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS MADE IN RESPECT OF  THE FIRST LADY OF NAMIBIA

The plaintiff instituted action against defendant for defamation arising from a video clip recorded by the defendant and distributed on social media where slanderous allegations were made against the plaintiff. The defendant defended the claim primarily on the basis that the statements allegedly used in the video clip were not made with intention to injure the plaintiff’s reputation and dignity as they concerned a matter of public interest relating to ongoing state corruption. He stated that his intention was to further obtain clarity on the activities of the plaintiff as a public office holder.

SIBEYA J granted plaintiff’s claim for damages in the amount of N$250,000. When assessing defenses in relation to defamation matters, the test is whether, in the mind of a reasonable person, the words used, objectively viewed, serve to undermine, or impair a person’s good name or reputation in the community. Further discussed in this matter is the determination whether the defendant violated the dignity of the plaintiff and whether such constitutes defamation, held that:

1. The violation of one’s dignity through defamatory statements may lead to damages being awarded based on such violation.
2. There is no distinction in moral blameworthiness between the creator of the rumor and conveyor of the rumor. Both factions must be discouraged and it must be known to everybody that whether you create the rumor or repeat it or simply say words capable of tarnishing one’s reputation or dignity without a valid defense in law, it amounts to words spoken that carry the same liability.
3. The statements made by the defendant in the video recording are found to be defamatory to the plaintiff and her family.
4. A modicum of difficulty or doubt, that on the facts of this case, the defendant failed to demonstrate in evidence that indeed he made the allegations in the public interest. Surfing through the evidence of the defendant reveals no valid defense in law to the plaintiff’s claim, and such defense therefore falls by the wayside.
5. That it is aggravating that the defamatory statements were made by a leader in society. A teacher and a political mobilizer who undoubtedly is looked up to by some of the members of the community. Leaders and educated persons, the defendant alike, should assist to breathe life in our Constitution by protecting fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined therein, inclusive of the respect for human dignity.
6. It is difficult to quantify harm to reputation and dignity in monetary terms. A higher award does not restore an injury to reputation and dignity. It is not necessarily the damages awarded that vindicates the injury caused to the reputation and dignity of the plaintiff, but the judicial finding in favour of the plaintiff.
7. The aggravated defamation in this matter is befitting with high compensation to be awarded to the plaintiff and the award reflects such aggravation.

Geingos v Hishoono NAHCMD 11 February 2022