Collen Mashawana tried to silence Daily Maverick – here’s why he failed
African Philantropreneur Collen Mashawana
The Johannesburg High Court has struck businessman and philanthropist Collen Mashawana’s urgent attempt to silence independent media house Daily Maverick off the roll, ordering him to pay costs on a punitive scale.
On Wednesday, 27 August 2025, Acting Judge Alex Pullinger heard arguments in Mashawana’s urgent application, which sought to interdict Daily Maverick and investigative journalist Pieter-Louis Myburgh from publishing further reports or even speaking publicly about allegations arising from a year-long investigation into his business dealings.
Allegations and legal claims
Mashawana, through his Collen Mashawana Foundation (CMF), has been linked to a luxury property in Waterfall Country Estate associated with suspended Independent Development Trust (IDT) chief executive Tebogo Malaka. According to Myburgh’s reporting, payments totalling R200,000 were made by Mashawana towards Malaka’s R16-million mansion in July 2024 and April 2025.
Those payments coincided with the awarding of a R60-million Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) tender to the foundation just weeks later. Daily Maverick also reported that workers on CMF-linked projects had gone unpaid, raising further questions about the use of public funds.
Mashawana’s legal team argued that the articles, first published on 11 August 2025 alongside a live Q&A session hosted by Myburgh, amounted to defamation and “public shaming”. They accused Daily Maverick of engaging in a “monetised and sensationalised campaign” designed to damage Mashawana’s reputation, including the outlet’s event The Gathering, scheduled for 28 August.
Courtroom arguments
Representing Mashawana, advocate Emanuel Masombuka pressed the urgency of the matter, saying Myburgh’s public discussion of the investigation would cause “irreparable harm” to his client’s reputation.
But counsel for Daily Maverick, Adrian Friedman, countered that the “horse had already bolted”, given the wide circulation of the allegations across multiple media platforms. He argued that interdictory relief is intended to prevent ongoing or imminent harm, not to repair reputational damage already suffered. For that, he said, Mashawana’s remedy lay in compensatory measures — such as lodging a formal complaint with the Press Council of South Africa.
“The purpose of an interdict,” Friedman told the court, “is not to assist business connections or protect reputation after allegations are in the public domain. It is to prevent harm before it occurs. That is not the case here.”
Court ruling
Acting Judge Pullinger agreed and struck the application from the roll, ordering Mashawana to pay costs on an attorney-and-client scale. The judge indicated that reasons for the ruling would be provided in due course.
The decision clears the way for Daily Maverick to continue reporting on the allegations and for Myburgh to speak at The Gathering, where he is expected to detail elements of his investigation.
Media freedom under spotlight
Daily Maverick hailed the judgment as a victory for press freedom in South Africa, warning that successful gag orders against journalists could set a dangerous precedent for accountability reporting.
For Mashawana, the ruling represents a setback in his effort to contain the reputational fallout from Myburgh’s investigation. The Collen Mashawana Foundation subsequently issued a statement emphasising that the court had not ruled on the truth of the allegations, but on the procedural defects of his application. “This is not a fight against media freedom,” the foundation said, “but against irresponsible journalism that misrepresents facts and damages reputations without proof.”
Nonetheless, the outcome underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing reputational interests with the public’s right to know, and highlights the resilience of South African courts in defending free expression and investigative journalism even when influential figures seek to curtail critical reporting.
