What started as idle chatter on Twitter may yet prove to be a test case of privacy laws and the protection of a person's dignity on social media.
On Tuesday, celebrity actor Sthembiso “SK” Khoza was trending on Twitter because a video clip of Khoza’s altercation with an unidentified person was doing the rounds. In the initial video clip, Khoza, a former actor in the telenovela The Queen that aired on DStv’s Mzansi Magic, is heard hurling insults at the man.
A woman, who appears to be recording the fracas, is heard saying: “He’s misbehaving ... he’s on to something.”
More video clips were posted on Twitter of Khoza’s meltdown and, like the first one, they all went viral.
In an inexplicable twist, Tweeps turned on one Gogo Maweni — whose real name is Makgotso Lee-Anne Makopo — who is thought to be Khoza’s ex.
A traditional healer, and a star on Showmax’s Izangoma Zodumo reality show, Maweni was accused of “bewitching” Khoza. In January 2022, Maweni, who is said to have a child with Khoza, posted on her Instagram account: “I don’t have baby daddy issues. All issues were settled in my ndumba (a sacred healing hut)! The outcome was to leave them with nothing ... if my kids don’t ‘eat’ no-one eats — Do the maths!”
All this seemed rather personal and invasive.
Certain sections of the Cybercrimes Act that came into effect on December 1 2021 create many new offences. Some of the offences are related to data, messages, computers, and networks. These offences include hacking, unlawful interception of data, ransomware, cyber forgery and uttering, cyber extortion, and malicious communications.
The penalties consist of a fine, imprisonment, or both.
In this case, in which Maweni was accused of bewitching Khoza, what does the law say?
Who is policing the comments? Can authorities act without a complainant? What happens if — God forbid — Khoza’s fans harm Maweni or the women who shared the video clips? Who can be held liable? If Khoza was experiencing a mental health issue, what does the Cybercrime Act say about posting a video of someone in that state?
Who is expected to report the anomaly and to whom? What role is Twitter expected to play in such a matter?
These questions put the recently enacted cybercrime law under the spotlight. Who is to say if an unsavoury post constitutes a crime under the Cybercrime Act?
With so many questions needing answers, let us look at the Cybercrime Act to see if we can provide any clarity.
Section 14 and 15 of the Cybercrime Act on data messages which incite damage to property or violence, stipulates: “Any person who discloses, by means of an electronic communication service, a data message to a person, group of persons or the general public with the intention to incite violence against a person or a group of persons is guilty of an offence.”
Given the history of people accused of witchcraft in SA in which they are ostracised, assaulted, and even murdered, does accusing Maweni of being a witch amount to inciting violence against her?
What offence, if any, did those circulating the video of Khoza’s sad episode commit? It might take legal arguments in court to get answers that bind.
The Cybercrime Act also includes, but is not limited to, acts such as the unlawful access to a computer or device such as a USB drive or an external hard drive; the illegal interception of data; the unlawful acquisition, possession, receipt or use of password; and forgery, fraud, and extortion online. Malicious communications are also criminalised.
This language is broad and vague, which could lead to various interpretations.
Even though SA has the third-highest number of cybercrime victims, the SA Police Service is not yet equipped to deal with the complex matter.
What needs to be done?
The new national police commissioner Gen Sehlahle Fannie Masemola must fast-track the establishment of the new department — a “designated contact point”, where cybercrimes can be reported and investigated.
Masemola can learn a thing or two from the Cyber Terror Response Centre of the South Korean National Policy Agency. The centre has police officers specialising in cybercrime investigation and provides digital forensic services to the Korean law enforcers. It is not by chance that Korean authorities have made great strides in tackling cybercrime. They invested in young people with the right skills. Masemola will need to entice young people to join the police cybercrime unit.
Recent data breaches at Postbank and TransUnion demonstrate that SA remains vulnerable to threats of serious economic, and security harm. The new cybercrime unit may also help SAPS deal with complicated commercial crimes like the ones Steinhoff is accused of committing.
In all honesty, the CyberCrime Act could be wasted ink if the police cannot understand or enforce laws governing the prosecution of cybercrime.
For now, the act is too ambiguous to be understood.
The new department must work hand in hand with SA’s Information Regulator to deal with cybercrime. However, the regulator must enforce the Protection of Personal Information Act.
We wait to hear if Maweni and Khoza were victims of cybercrime.
• Lourie is a former correspondent for Thomson Reuters, Business Report, Fin24 and Finweek magazine. He is also founder and editor of techfinancials.co.za.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.