News

Court Slams False R40 Million Claims Against Gwede Mantashe

Published

2 months ago

July 17, 2025

Chiraag

Gwede Mantashe court case, false social media claims, Zuma defamation case, TikTok political allegations, Joburg High Court decision, mineworkers compensation story, legal news South Africa, Joburg ETC

Joburg High Court rules Zuma’s viral accusations as defamatory and baseless

In a country where political drama often trends before breakfast, few stories have ignited social media quite like the claim that Gwede Mantashe pocketed R40 million meant for former mineworkers. The Johannesburg High Court has now officially drawn a line under this story by ruling that the accusations made by Zakhele Zuma were both false and defamatory.

From TikTok to the High Court

The controversy began much like many viral storms these days: on social media. Zakhele Zuma, a name previously unknown to most, alleged on TikTok and other platforms that Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources Gwede Mantashe had benefited from settlement funds originally set aside for workers affected by the 1999 liquidation of East Rand Proprietary Mines, known as ERPM.

Zuma claimed that Mantashe, who led the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) at that time, received a R40 million payout and failed to pass it on to the roughly 4,000 miners who had worked in harsh and hazardous conditions.

The response was swift. In June 2025, Mantashe filed an urgent court application denying these allegations and accusing Zuma of spreading harmful lies.

Mantashe Fights Back

For Mantashe, the accusations were not just irritating; they were dangerous. In court papers, he argued that Zuma had never produced any proof, never laid formal charges, and made no attempt to contact him for comment. Instead, Zuma continued posting, fueling public anger and putting the minister’s safety at risk.

“This is not just about me,” Mantashe told the court. “It is about the dignity of the office I hold and the people who might be misled into believing something that simply is not true.”

He further explained that the allegations had incited hostility, damaged his reputation, and interfered with his ability to carry out public duties, particularly given his roles as both a cabinet minister and ANC national chairperson.

The Court’s Verdict

On 17 July 2025, Judge Janse van Nieuwenhuizen handed down a clear ruling. Zuma’s statements, the judge said, were unlawful. Zuma must stop making the allegations and is barred from implying in any form that Mantashe received any money from ERPM.

While the full amount of potential damages and details of any retraction will be decided later through oral evidence, the judgment firmly established that Zuma’s claims lacked legal merit.

“The respondent’s publication of the statements is unlawful,” Van Nieuwenhuizen ruled, adding that the issue of legal costs will be decided at a subsequent hearing.

The Bigger Picture

This case underscores the power of social media in shaping public perception and the legal consequences that follow when misinformation spreads unchecked. In South Africa, where unresolved historical injustices, especially those involving mineworkers’ rights and compensation, continue to stir strong emotions, the line between accountability and defamation can be thin.

Many South Africans remain haunted by stories of miners who toiled under dangerous conditions and then received little in return. This ruling reminds us that accusations require evidence and cannot rely solely on internet virality.

Public Reaction

Online, the court ruling sparked a range of responses. Some applauded the legal system for stepping in to protect public officials from misinformation. Others remained skeptical, suggesting that unresolved grievances in the mining sector may still need broader investigation, regardless of this particular case.

One thing is certain: when fact meets fiction in a courtroom, the truth tends to win out.