Former Minister Malusi Gigaba has won a temporary court interdict to halt the airing of an interview with his ex-wife, Noma Mngoma, on the pay-streaming app Showmax series Untied.
The interview, which promises to expose intimate details of their tumultuous marriage, has sparked widespread public interest due to its allegations of infidelity, pornography addiction, and misuse of public funds.
In his urgent application, Gigaba named MultiChoice as the first respondent, Goat Originalsthe production company behind the show, as the second, and Mngoma as the third.
WhatsApp message
The legal action follows a WhatsApp message from Vanessa Tloubatla, the show’s executive producer. In it she informed Gigaba of the interview’s content and offering him a right to reply.
According to court documents, Tloubatla revealed that Mngoma discussed “her perspective” on their marriage. This includes claims of Gigaba’s infidelity, pornography addiction, her arrest involving the Hawks. Also alleged misuse of taxpayers’ money for personal trips.
Gigaba, concerned about the impact on his already tarnished reputation, sought legal advice.
His attorneys requested a copy of the podcast from Goat Originals, but received only a summarised version.
The summary confirmed that the interview contained deeply personal allegations about his private life. Also claims targeting his professional conduct as a former minister.
“The second respondent makes unfounded allegations that I engaged in multiple extramarital affairs. [That I] was addicted to pornography, and was involved in [Mngoma’s] arrest,” Gigaba stated in court papers.
Legal team roped in
After further correspondence, Goat Originals provided snippets of the interview for Gigaba to review. Upon watching, he instructed his legal team to pursue an interdict. He argued that the interview’s sole purpose was to defame him and held no public interest.
“The broadcast would irreparably taint my good name,” Gigaba asserted.
The court’s temporary order now prevents the airing of the interview pending further legal proceedings. The case has ignited debate over privacy, public interest, and the boundaries of personal disclosures in media.
