Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

Opinionistas

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed are not that of Daily Maverick.....

Protection orders are being weaponised to gag those exposing injustice

Nicole Fritz
By Nicole Fritz
21 Mar 2025
Facebook
2
If left unchecked, the use of protection orders as gagging orders will erode press freedom and civic activism and weaken the credibility of these legal protections for those who truly need them.

Limpopo-based freelance journalist Thomo Nkgadima was arrested three weeks ago, allegedly for breaching a protection order against him. Some of Nkgadima’s recent reporting highlighted issues with the construction of a local hospital.

Those who obtained the order against Nkgadima? The people involved in the hospital’s construction.

Sadly, Nkgadima’s matter is only one of a recent spate of cases where protection orders are being cynically employed to target journalists, activists and whistleblowers. 

Also in recent weeks, the interim protection orders and suspended warrants of arrest obtained by Mossel Bay Magistrate Ezra Morrison against News24 journalist Karyn Maughan and audience engagement editor Kelly Anderson were eventually set aside and cancelled. Morrison had sought these orders following Maughan’s reporting of her alleged mishandling of a case involving the Deveney Nel murder accused.

Harassment and intimidation


And earlier this year, when Sunday Times investigative reporter Thanduxolo Jika phoned the Department of Basic Education’s deputy director-general for comment on a recent story, she filed a complaint of harassment and intimidation against Jika and told the police that he had contravened a protection order she had obtained (there was none).

Two journalists at Carte Blanche, the investigative reporting programme, have also recently had to battle attempts to obtain protection orders against them in two separate incidents, but both at the instance of the subjects of their investigative reporting.

But journalists aren’t the only targets. Gender activist Caroline Peters was served with a protection order in August 2021 and charged under the Criminal Procedure Act for a Facebook post in which she included a photograph of the court roll and a picture from behind of the accused in a rape trial. Sasol whistleblower Ian Erasmus also finds himself facing an interim protection order, obtained by four persons implicated by him in Sasol’s wrongdoing.

Still, to rush to the conclusion that protection orders have become a racket of sorts — targeting those who uphold accountability rather than helping to hold wrongdoers accountable — would be wrong.

Protection orders first developed in our law in response to an overwhelmingly clear need. South Africa suffers terrifying levels of gender-based violence, much of that taking place within the context of intimate partnerships. The Domestic Violence Act (DVA) of 1998 looks to provide protection to individuals, particularly women and children, who suffer domestic abuse.

Arrest and penalty


Among its mechanisms are a process by which a person facing real risk of harm from a domestic partner might obtain — swiftly and without expense — a court-issued order prohibiting specific conduct, breach of which would immediately incur arrest and penalty. 

The Protection from Harassment Act was introduced to extend these protections beyond domestic settings — offering relief to anyone facing undue harassment, whether from a stranger, colleague, or acquaintance. Importantly, this act allowed for protection orders to be granted without the need for an intimate relationship between the parties, making it a potentially powerful tool against stalking, cyberbullying, and threats to personal safety.

This background makes the double imperative clear: the need to ensure that those who genuinely need the shield of a protection order be in no way frustrated in their efforts to secure one, while simultaneously guarding against protection orders being spuriously obtained in order to thwart lawful reporting and related activity.

Resisting this trend of protection orders repurposed as gag orders requires that there be greater awareness of how protection orders are obtained and operate. This is to the benefit of both those who genuinely need protection orders and those who find themselves improperly threatened by their imposition.  

For instance, protection orders can be obtained in a two-stage process: through an interim and then a final protection order. In the case of interim protection orders, which can be obtained without the respondent first being notified and offered the opportunity to make representations, they are of no force and effect unless and until served on the respondent.  

In journalist Thanduxolo Jika’s case, there should have been no fear, absent him having been served with the interim protection order and so aware of it, that the deputy director-general could have obtained one, as she claimed. 

In the case of a final protection order, no order will be issued unless the respondent has been given full notice of the return date and so afforded the opportunity to contest any final protection order. 

Rigorous scrutiny


General publicity of this trend and engagement of bodies like the Magistrates’ Commission is necessary to alert magistrates to the importance of applying rigorous scrutiny when assessing protection order applications in cases involving journalists, activists, and whistleblowers.

That is not to say that these actors should never be restrained by protection orders, but that allegations of harassment in these circumstances need to be framed against the demands of journalism and the broader public interest.

If left unchecked, the use of protection orders as gagging orders will erode press freedom and civic activism and also potentially weaken the credibility of these legal protections for those who truly need them. 

How dark and bitter an irony would it be if an important legal mechanism intended to offer vital protection to those facing the threat of imminent harm is instead employed as a gag for journalists investigating corruption, activists challenging systemic injustices, and whistleblowers exposing unethical conduct. DM

Categories:

Tags: