The recent court decision allowing DJ Euphonik to seize Ntsiki Mazwai’s assets is a glaring example of how South Africa’s justice system continues to favour those with deep pockets.
While Ntsiki is known for her outspoken and controversial views, in this particular case, she was not the one who initially made the allegations. She merely retweeted an existing post.
The judgement against her, therefore, is not only disproportionate. It also serves as a warning to those who dare to challenge power, privilege, and patriarchy.
How the rich weaponise the courts
The way this case unfolded speaks volumes about how justice is served in South Africa. Time and again, we have seen how those with financial resources can weaponise the courts against those who challenge them. Defamation cases, in particular, have become a tool for the rich to silence dissenting voices.
Let’s take a moment to analyse the facts: Ntsiki Mazwai did not originate the claims against DJ Euphonik.
She simply retweeted what was already in the public domain. Yet, instead of questioning why the original claims were made in the first place, the legal system swiftly punished her for amplifying a conversation that many others were also engaging in.
Ntsiki’s crime was to retweet, not originate post
This selective targeting suggests that this case was not about defamation in its true sense. It was rather about sending a message… “stay in your lane, or we will come for you”.
If the justice system were truly fair, the same energy used to silence Ntsiki should have been applied to investigate the allegations made against Euphonik.
Instead, we see a disturbing pattern where accusations against powerful men are brushed aside. While women who speak up, whether as accusers or supporters, are punished severely.
It’s no secret that Ntsiki is a polarising figure. She is a feminist, a critic of male privilege. Someone who refuses to conform to societal expectations of how women should behave.
Targeted for being outspoken
This makes her an easy target. The backlash she faces is not just about defamation. It is about her entire persona, her refusal to be silent. Her insistence on calling out injustice, and her demand that women’s voices be heard.
Had a male public figure merely retweeted the same information, would the response have been the same? It’s unlikely. We have seen many instances where men spread misinformation without facing legal consequences. The harshness of the ruling against Ntsiki is rooted in the fact that she is a woman who refuses to be silenced.
The nature of social media means that controversial discussions spread rapidly. Many public figures engage in heated debates. They share allegations, and retweet information that has not been verified.
However, not everyone faces legal action for it. The fact that Ntsiki is being made an example of, despite not originating the claims herself, speaks to the selective nature of how defamation laws are applied.
Case is about power, not defamation
Consider how often influential figures have shared misleading information. Whether it was about politics, crime, or social issues, they never faced similar consequences. This case, therefore, is not just about defamation; it is about power. It is about who has the financial means to sue and who does not. And it is about who gets to dictate the narrative and who is punished for questioning it.
What is most concerning about this entire situation is the total shift of blame. The original allegations against Euphonik have been completely overshadowed by the legal battle against Ntsiki. Instead of interrogating whether there was any truth to the claims or ensuring justice for those who may have been affected, the focus has shifted to punishing a woman for simply engaging in the conversation.
This is a recurring theme in cases involving powerful men. The allegations fade into the background, while those who dare to speak about them, especially women, are met with legal threats, public ridicule, and financial ruin. It sends a chilling message to victims and advocates alike: if you speak out, you will pay the price.
Strong message to leave the rich alone
Ntsiki’s case is not just about her. It is about every outspoken woman in South Africa who has ever dared to challenge the status quo. The attempt to financially cripple her through asset seizure is meant to deter others from following in her footsteps. It is a message that if you speak out against powerful men, you risk losing everything.
But the irony is that Ntsiki has never been one to bow down to pressure. If anything, this case will only strengthen her resolve. It will inspire others to keep questioning a system that only protects the privileged.
SA justice compromised
This judgement is not about justice, it is about silencing a woman who refuses to be silent. The fact that Ntsiki is being held accountable for something she did not originate is proof that our legal system is skewed in favour of those with money and influence.
Instead of celebrating this ruling as a victory against defamation, we should be asking ourselves why the justice system moves so swiftly to punish those who speak out. All this while failing to address the deeper issues at play. This is not just about Ntsiki. It is about the many voices that continue to be stifled. In a country where justice too often serves the wealthy, not the truth.
