Solidarity Threatens Legal Action Against Minister Ntshavheni Over ‘Defamatory’ Misinformation Claims
Trade union Solidarity has launched legal proceedings against Minister in the Presidency, Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, accusing her of defamation and issuing a seven-day ultimatum to retract her comments and apologise unconditionally.
The minister’s statements, made on 27 March 2025, allegedly accuse Solidarity and civil rights group AfriForum of conducting a “misinformation and disinformation campaign” during their joint visit to the United States earlier this year. The remarks have sparked a diplomatic and legal firestorm, with Solidarity’s CEO Dirk Hermann condemning them as baseless, defamatory, and politically motivated.
“This unfounded narrative needs to stop before the real problems can be addressed,” Hermann stated.
Legal Notice Demands Retraction and Apology
In a formal legal notice, Solidarity has demanded that Ntshavheni withdraw her statements within seven days and issue a public apology for the reputational damage caused. Failure to comply, the union warns, will result in further civil and possibly criminal litigation, including defamation and treason-related charges.
According to Solidarity, Ntshavheni’s comments—branding their actions as “treasonous” and a “threat to national sovereignty”—are not only legally questionable but a direct attack on civil society and freedom of speech.
Background: The War of Words
The controversy has its roots in a press release issued by the ANC on 3 February, where AfriForum was first accused of spreading misinformation during their U.S. tour. Ntshavheni later echoed these accusations, alleging that both organisations were engaged in spreading falsehoods that compromised national interests.
“Without providing any facts, the Minister in the Presidency said that the Cabinet takes note of the continued misinformation and that acts of treason cannot be left unpunished,” Hermann added.
The implications were serious: law enforcement agencies have since begun investigating treason charges against Solidarity and AfriForum—an escalation that Hermann described as “absurd” and an attempt to deflect from growing tensions between South Africa and the United States.
Threats to Civil Society?
Solidarity argues that Ntshavheni’s proposals to regulate civil society organisations are dangerous and unconstitutional. Critics see these moves as part of a broader attempt to silence organisations that challenge state narratives or hold alternative political views.
“The suggestion that organisations critical of government policy are somehow traitorous is deeply worrying in a constitutional democracy,” Hermann said.
Ntshavheni, while yet to publicly respond in detail, has confirmed that she would consult her legal team upon receipt of formal legal documents from Solidarity.
Diplomatic Context: Tensions With the US
The row comes at a time of strained diplomatic relations between South Africa and the United States. In March 2025, the U.S. expelled former South African ambassador Ebrahim Rasool, declaring him persona non grata after he criticised former U.S. President Donald Trump—a move that has left the ambassadorial post vacant.
Mcebisi Jonas currently serves as South Africa’s special envoy to Washington, amid ongoing negotiations and cooled diplomatic ties.
Meanwhile, media coverage of Solidarity and AfriForum’s visit has added fuel to the fire, with some platforms accused of publishing misleading content. In late April, the Press Ombudsman ruled against one such outlet for defamatory reporting, further validating Solidarity’s concerns about reputational harm.
Legal Experts Weigh In
Independent legal analyst Shadrack Moyo weighed in on the matter, stating that Solidarity may have grounds for a defamation suit—provided they can prove reputational damage.
“If the organisation is able to show the court that they suffered reputational damages, then they may have a case and Ntshavheni may be forced to apologise. But they would have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt,” said Moyo.
As the countdown to the seven-day deadline ticks on, Solidarity appears determined to see its legal threats through—setting the stage for a potentially high-profile courtroom battle.
