Latest news with #ProtectionfromHarassmentAct
IOL News
12-07-2025
- IOL News
SAPS slammed for delays in social media hate speech case
Goolam Muhammed Suliman Vawda, 49, has been using the social media alias @goolammv to discredit and threaten journalists, government officials, entrepreneurs, and politicians from South Africa for six years. Image: Supplied LAW enforcement inefficiencies are once again under scrutiny as the South African Police Service (SAPS) drags its feet in investigating a high-profile social media abuse case involving former Intelligence Minister Lindiwe Sisulu. Sisulu laid a criminal complaint on July 21, 2024, at the Roodepoort Police Station against Goolam Mohammed Sulieman Vawda, who is widely believed to be behind the controversial X (formerly Twitter) handle @goolammv — an account accused of spreading hate speech, cyberbullying, and defamatory statements targeting political figures and private citizens alike. A year later, the case remains stagnant, with no progress communicated by the Gauteng police. SAPS failed to provide any update when approached for comment in May, and has not responded to subsequent queries. This comes despite allegations that Vawda fled the country shortly after the case was opened, allegedly relocating to Mauritius, where he continues to operate the X account. Digital analyst and World Wide Worx CEO Arthur Goldstuck described the state's handling of such cases as deeply concerning. He said the country's Cybercrimes Act and Protection from Harassment Act offer legal pathways to address online abuse, but implementation remains a major hurdle. 'Law enforcement often lacks the digital forensics expertise and dedicated resources to pursue these cases effectively,' said Goldstuck. 'That gap between the legal framework and practical enforcement is where justice collapses.' He warned that unless SAPS is trained and resourced to trace digital footprints and secure admissible evidence, victims will continue to suffer while perpetrators act with impunity. 'It's not just about the law being there. It's about having the ability and the will to use it.' Goldstuck noted that key steps — such as securing digital evidence to link an individual to an online persona — were either ignored or delayed, weakening the potential for successful prosecution. 'If forensic experts had been engaged early on, a proper digital trail could have been established, which is now much harder to reconstruct.' Police have yet to respond despite numerous requests for an update on Sisulu's case.
IOL News
30-06-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
DA slams R100k taxpayer-funded legal bill for magistrate's protection
The Minister of Justice has continued to evade the real question as to why a legally trained person is assisted to the tune of R100 143.68 to obtain a protection order against journalists, says the writer. The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development continues to defend a shocking display of state overreach and misuse of public funds as revealed by a DA parliamentary question. The Department spent over R100k of public money on a personal protection order for a magistrate, when the magistrate herself could have attended to this administrative task. The DA will be writing to the minister, demanding that the magistrate pay back this wasted money. Last year, Magistrate Ezra Morrison sought a protection order against journalists who reported on the magistrate's failure to refer a child, now accused of the murder of Deveney Nel, to the Children's Court when he was a minor. He was accused of raping an 11 year old girl when he was 13 and was found by psychiatrists to be a danger to society and at high risk of reoffending. Despite this warning, nothing was done. In reply to a question posed by the DA, the Minister of Justice has continued to evade the real question as to why a legally trained person is assisted to the tune of R100 143.68 to obtain a protection order against journalists. The minister attempted to justify this gross abuse of funds by claiming that the matter was 'intrinsically linked' to the magistrate's professional duties. What is worse is that costs are for consultations, drafting, formal appearances and settlement. Not only are these prices seriously inflated, but these are all things the magistrate could have done herself for a personal matter. Seeking a protection order is something thousands of vulnerable South Africans are forced to navigate alone every day in terms of the Protection from Harassment Act and the Domestic Violence Act. The two Acts are intended to prevent domestic abuse and harassment, provide safety and security to complainants and their dependents and are specifically designed to be accessible and victim-centred. Magistrate Morrison's application to obtain such an order against journalists is a private matter and not a state function, whichever way you look at it. The DA finds it deeply disturbing that R100 143.68 was spent on an advocate's fees when the Magistrate could have simply attended at the Clerk of the Court and completed the requisite forms. Yet, the minister failed to address this question in her response and only provided vague answers with no proof that this warranted a protection order or an explanation as to why the matter was not referred to the Press Ombud. While the most vulnerable in our society – women, children and the poor – sit in long queues waiting for overwhelmed clerks and backlogged courts, the minister affords preferential treatment for the legal elite. The DA will be pursuing further accountability through parliamentary channels, including demanding that the Magistrate pay the money back to the state. Nicholas Gotsell MP DA NCOP Member on Security & Justice
Daily Maverick
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Employers and schools can no longer claim ignorance of cyberbullying
South Africa has a robust set of laws to tackle cyberbullying in schools and workplaces. However, in classrooms, offices and online chats, the updating and enforcement of these policies remain deficient. In 2021, a video of 15-year-old Limpopo schoolgirl Lufuno Mavhunga's violent assault at the hands of a fellow learner went viral. Following the assault, Mavhunga took her own life. An investigation by the South African Human Rights Commission found that the school had failed in its duty of care, ignoring pleas from her family and failing to act when alerted. 'We have very good laws,' said Dr Sershiv Reddy, senior lecturer in the department of mercantile law at the University of Johannesburg. 'But sometimes we are impeded by enforcement, maybe due to the lack of funding or other resources.' South Africa's legislative toolkit, including the Protection from Harassment Act (2011) and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (Pepuda, 2000), offers remedies for victims of harassment and discrimination. These protections often vanish in the policy void between written laws and day-to-day practice. No adults in the room 'More than 95% of our children have access to the internet,' Reddy said 'The keyword is access. It doesn't mean that they may have a mobile device at home, but it means they have access via other means. That could be through a school computer, through the library, [or] an internet café.' Seventy percent of children access the internet without their parents knowing, and more than half of South African schoolchildren have been victims of cyberbullying, Reddy said. In 2018, the Ipsos Research Institute ranked South Africa fifth in a global survey of 28 countries measuring cyberbullying rates. And it's not just children. Anli Bezuidenhout, employment law director at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, pointed out that teachers and employees are also victims of online harassment. WhatsApp and HR While bullies have migrated to WhatsApp groups, Instagram direct messages (DMs) and Zoom calls, schools and workplaces seem stuck in a pre-digital era, failing to proactively update policies. 'Where in the past we may have had policies relating to sexual harassment, we now often see those policies haven't been broadened to also deal with issues such as cyberbullying,' Bezuidenhout said. This is despite the Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in the Workplace, which came into effect four years ago. It states that employers (including schools) should have anti-harassment policies that also cover digital spaces. Bezuidenhout explained that the code introduces the requirement to review other policies, such as a company or school's social media policy. Off the clock, still on the hook Tim Fletcher, director and chair of dispute resolution at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, describes the Protection from Harassment Act as 'a fairly draconian remedy', but one that is easily obtainable. Victims can approach the magistrate's court, whether in their area, the perpetrator's, or where the incident happened, to secure an interim protection order, Fletcher said. This order becomes effective the moment it is served, and if unchallenged, it converts into a final order with an attached warrant of arrest. Pepuda, meanwhile, offers even broader powers through the Equality Court, allowing action on virtually any ground undermining dignity. And critically, cyberbullying outside of working hours is still grounds for disciplinary action. 'It's off-duty misconduct, you're against the school conduct, against the company's conduct, bringing the company into disrepute. I would still be able to discipline such an individual,' Aadil Patel, head of employment law at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, said. How does this affect you? The boundaries between public and private, workplace and home, have blurred. WhatsApp groups, private DMs and social media posts are not outside the law's reach. Cyberbullying at school or at work is not something you have to endure quietly. The legal system offers tools for protection. But those tools only work if victims and communities know they exist, and use them.
The Star
17-05-2025
- The Star
LPC tribunal finds ‘prima facie evidence' against attorney Kaamilah Paulse
In a significant ruling, the Appeals Tribunal of the Legal Practice Council (LPC) has upheld a misconduct complaint brought by Johannesburg-based father, Asif Casoojee, against attorney Kaamilah Paulse of Herold Gie Attorneys. Casoojee has been locked in a four-year legal battle with his former spouse over access to their two children. Paulse represents his spouse. Casoojee reported Paulse to the LPC, accusing her of dishonesty, unethical and dishonest conduct, including orchestrating parental alienation, misusing the Protection from Harassment Act, and unlawfully interfering in his private and professional affairs. The case not only raises serious questions about the conduct of legal professionals in family law matters but also highlights the ongoing challenges faced by fathers in the South African legal system when fighting for contact with their children. In its findings delivered on 13 March 2025, the Appeals Tribunal found that Casoojee had presented prima facie evidence of misconduct on both counts raised in his appeal. Casoojee 's first charge related to a final protection order obtained by Paulse against him in her capacity. According to the Tribunal's report, the order was granted in his absence, allegedly due to defective service of the interim order, which had neither been delivered by SAPS as required nor included a return date. The second charge was more serious: a conflict of interest and interference in the parental relationship between Casoojee and his children. The tribunal said it found prima facie proof of Paulse's involvement in restricting Casoogee's access to his children's school, records, and communication, stating that her actions amounted to 'parental alienation'. The tribunal also flagged her alleged use of unlawfully obtained financial records and her participation in a private WhatsApp group discussing confidential details of Casoojee's company. The Appeals Tribunal, chaired by Advocate Sonja Lötter, was critical of Paulse's failure to address key concerns. ''This is not an answer to the evidence that the complainant has presented,' the tribunal said, adding that the children's best interests were not prioritised in any of the extensive litigation between the parties since 2021. The LPC reaffirmed the duty of attorneys to uphold the constitutional principle of the best interests of the child, as enshrined in the Children's Act 38 of 2005. 'Attorneys should not approach each case as if it were a war between litigants,' the tribunal stated, citing Judge Peter Mabuse, who warned that court rules must not be used 'as weapons in a battle to annihilate the opposing party'. The case underscores broader systemic issues. Although South African law grants both parents equal rights and responsibilities, many fathers report feeling marginalised in the family law system. 'There is often an unspoken bias that assumes the mother is always the better caregiver,' says family law expert Adv Lesedi Mokoena. 'But that is not the law, and it's not always what's in the best interests of the child.' Casoojee , who is currently applying to the High Court to compel Paulse's removal from the case due to a conflict of interest, asserts that his fight is about more than personal justice. 'This case is about setting a precedent. Our children deserve better than to be used as pawns in legal warfare.' On Thursday, Herold Gie Attorneys wrote to The Star , demanding that the paper not publish the story. In the letter, the law firm said: 'We strongly disagree with the decision of the LPC Appeals Tribunal to refer the matter back to the Disciplinary Committee. ''While the decision has been made, it should be noted that no final finding has been made regarding Ms Paulse. 'Ms Paulse will, when the matter is heard by the Disciplinary Committee, be challenging the complaint,' the letter reads. The matter is now expected to head back to the High Court, where the future of his relationship with his children may finally be resolved.
The Star
17-05-2025
- The Star
LPC tribunal finds ‘prima facie evidence' against attorney Kamillah Paulse
Attorney Kamillah Paulse of Herold Gie Attorneys. Asif Casoogee, who has been locked in a four-year legal battle with his former spouse over access to their two children. In a significant ruling, the Appeals Tribunal of the Legal Practice Council (LPC) has upheld a misconduct complaint brought by Johannesburg-based father, Asif Casoojee, against attorney Kamillah Paulse of Herold Gie Attorneys. Casoojee has been locked in a four-year legal battle with his former spouse over access to their two children. Kamillah Paulse represents his spouse. Casoojee reported Paulse to the LPC, accusing her of dishonesty, unethical and dishonest conduct, including orchestrating parental alienation, misusing the Protection from Harassment Act, and unlawfully interfering in his private and professional affairs. The case not only raises serious questions about the conduct of legal professionals in family law matters but also highlights the ongoing challenges faced by fathers in the South African legal system when fighting for contact with their children. In its findings delivered on 13 March 2025, the Appeals Tribunal found that Casoogee had presented prima facie evidence of misconduct on both counts raised in his appeal. Casoogee's first charge related to a final protection order obtained by Paulse against him in her capacity. According to the Tribunal's report, the order was granted in his absence, allegedly due to defective service of the interim order, which had neither been delivered by SAPS as required nor included a return date. The second charge was more serious: a conflict of interest and interference in the parental relationship between Casoogee and his children. The tribunal said it found prima facie proof of Paulse's involvement in restricting Casoogee's access to his children's school, records, and communication, stating that her actions amounted to 'parental alienation'. The tribunal also flagged her alleged use of unlawfully obtained financial records and her participation in a private WhatsApp group discussing confidential details of Casoogee's company. The Appeals Tribunal, chaired by Advocate Sonja Lötter, was critical of Paulse's failure to address key concerns. ''This is not an answer to the evidence that the complainant has presented,' the tribunal said, adding that the children's best interests were not prioritised in any of the extensive litigation between the parties since 2021.
