Mbabane – The Luke Commission has been accused of seeking a blanket gag order against three respondents to prevent them from publicly discussing alleged labour law violations at the organisation.
The allegation is contained in Heads of Argument filed by Nkosinathi Makhava Nhlabatsi, Ntokozo Michael Mabundza and Sydney Maseko in an urgent High Court application brought by the Luke Commission.
The respondents are opposing the Commission’s bid to interdict them from publishing, republishing, circulating or sharing statements concerning the organisation, its directors, management, employees and operations.
They argue that the orders sought would go beyond the specific publications complained of and effectively restrict their freedom of expression.
The respondents further contend that the Commission has not established a clear right to prevent them from raising public concerns about its treatment of employees, particularly where some of the allegations relate to issues that have allegedly been acknowledged by the organisation itself.
At the centre of the dispute are allegations concerning the non-remittance of employees’ provident fund contributions and other alleged labour practices.
The respondents state that the Commission admitted in a public statement issued in May 2026 that it was not remitting provident fund deductions because of financial challenges.
They argue that the admission supports their contention that the issue is not simply a matter of defamatory statements but one of public interest.
The respondents further state that the Labour Commissioner’s office had received complaints against the organisation and that preliminary investigations had identified some labour-related violations.
They argue that the Commission should not be granted an order preventing them from discussing the allegations while the Labour Commissioner’s office is still investigating the matter.
According to the respondents, some of them have also been consulted by the Labour Commissioner’s office in connection with the allegations.
They contend that granting the interdict would therefore interfere with their participation in an ongoing government process.
The respondents also oppose the Commission’s request for an order compelling them to remove existing publications from Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok and X, as well as to publish a retraction.
They argue that the requested orders are too broad because the Commission has not clearly identified all the statements it considers defamatory.
The respondents say the Commission is effectively asking the court to prohibit them from making future statements about its operations, including statements that may not be defamatory.
They further argue that the proposed order would require them to first obtain a court determination before making allegations concerning corruption, fraud, criminal conduct, dishonesty or other alleged wrongdoing.
The respondents describe this as an untenable restriction on freedom of expression.
On the defamation allegations, the respondents maintain that the publications were substantially true and constituted fair comment on matters of public interest.
They argue that the Commission has focused on describing the statements as defamatory instead of providing evidence showing that the underlying allegations are false.
The respondents also point to other reports and social media comments in which similar concerns about the organisation’s labour practices have allegedly been raised.
They contend that the issue of provident fund deductions is particularly relevant because the First and Second Respondents allegedly discovered that contributions deducted from their salaries had not been remitted to the Eswatini National Provident Fund.
The respondents argue that their direct experience as former employees gives them an interest in raising the matter publicly.
They further submit that the Commission provides health services to the public and receives public and donor funding, making scrutiny of its operations a matter of public concern.
The respondents have therefore asked the High Court to dismiss the application, arguing that the Commission has failed to establish a clear case for the extensive relief it seeks.
Discussion about this post