The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has found controversial blogger Musa Khawula in contempt of court after he failed to comply with a previous order compelling him to remove and retract defamatory social media posts about businessman Senzo Tsabedze.
Acting Judge Mzuzu handed down the contempt ruling on August 27, finding that Khawula had failed to adhere to key provisions of an earlier court order issued on July 21, 2026, in favour of Tsabedze.
R10k fine suspended pending compliance
The court imposed a punitive fine of R10 000 on Khawula. However, the fine has been suspended on condition that he fully complies with the July court order within five days of being served with the latest judgment.
According to the ruling, the suspension will automatically fall away if Khawula does not comply within the prescribed period, making the fine immediately enforceable.
The court’s order also warns that continued failure to comply could result in a 90-day prison sentence.
To ensure enforcement, the provincial commissioner of the South African Police Service (SAPS) in Gauteng and the station commander of Sandton police station were authorised to implement the sanctions should they become operative.
Earlier court order declared posts defamatory
The contempt finding stems from a judgment granted by Judge Nel on July 21, which declared a series of posts published by Khawula on X, formerly Twitter, to be false and defamatory.
The posts, shared on various dates during July 2026, contained allegations regarding Tsabedze’s personal life, including claims that the businessman had been unfaithful.
In the July ruling, the court ordered Khawula to permanently remove the posts and refrain from making any further defamatory statements of a similar nature.
He was also instructed to publish an apology on all his social media platforms and distribute the apology to media houses, online blogs and other platforms that had repeated or referenced the allegations.
Additionally, Khawula was ordered to pay legal costs on an attorney-and-client scale, including counsel’s fees.
Court-specified apology required
As part of the earlier judgment, the court attached proposed wording for a public apology.
The draft statement describes the allegations against Tsabedze as “false, unverified, unjustified and defamatory”, acknowledging that they were presented as factual despite a lack of supporting evidence.
The apology further recognises that the posts caused reputational damage, personal distress and public embarrassment to Tsabedze and his family.
Risk of imprisonment remains
The latest contempt ruling significantly raises the stakes for Khawula, who now faces both financial penalties and the possibility of imprisonment should he continue to ignore the court’s directives.
The judgment effectively gives the blogger a final opportunity to comply with the court’s orders before more severe sanctions, including jail time, are activated.
- The Gauteng High Court found blogger Musa Khawula in contempt of court for failing to remove and retract defamatory social media posts about businessman Senzo Tsabedze.
- A R10,000 fine was imposed on Khawula but suspended on the condition that he complies with the July 21, 2026, court order within five days of being served.
- The earlier court order declared Khawula's posts defamatory, falsely alleging Tsabedze had been unfaithful, and required their removal, an apology, and payment of legal costs.
- The court's order included a proposed apology describing the allegations as "false, unverified, unjustified and defamatory," acknowledging reputational damage caused.
- Continued non-compliance could lead to the suspension of the fine and a 90-day imprisonment, with the SAPS authorized to enforce these sanctions.
To ensure enforcement, the provincial commissioner of the
In the July ruling, the court ordered
He was also instructed to publish an apology on all his social media platforms and distribute the apology to media houses, online blogs and other platforms that had repeated or referenced the allegations.
Additionally,
As part of the earlier judgment, the court attached proposed wording for a public apology.
