When writer Jo Watson found out on Thursday that a protection order that had been hanging over her for 58 days had been withdrawn, she burst into tears of relief.
Watson witnessed a disturbing road rage incident in February. She filmed part of an assault and used the footage to trace the assailant and victim.
As a writer with a large social media following, she used the platforms to speak out about the incident. The Sunday Times contacted her, secured a copy of the video and reported how school transport driver Zandi Mbazima had skidded into the back of education expert Candice Adams's car on a wet road in Honeydew, Johannesburg. Adams responded in rage, punching Mbazima in the face and torso.
After further articles and a TikTok account with no connection to the Sunday Times publishing the assault video, causing it to go viral, Adams retaliated.
She obtained a temporary protection order against Watson on March 11, telling the court she felt threatened by Watson and accusing her of having orchestrated a media campaign against her.
Watson tried unsuccessfully to have the order lifted. When the matter was postponed to June 10, she appealed to the Johannesburg high court to set aside the order.
Judge Denise Fisher this week ruled in Watson’s favour, set aside the order with immediate effect and said Adams must pay costs on a punitive scale.
Fisher found Adams had failed to disclose she had been arrested and charged with assaulting Mbazima, that Watson was to be a state witness against her and that Watson had not published Adams's identity until after it was made public by the Sunday Times.
Watson told the court the interim order against her constituted a serious and ongoing violation of liberty, dignity and freedom of expression. Adams argued that the matter was not urgent, that Watson’s application be declined with costs and that the high court did not have jurisdiction to interfere with an ongoing magistrate’s court matter.
Watson alleged that Adams had abused the court process, using the Protection Against Harassment Act to intimidate and silence her. Fisher agreed, finding “the abuse of a process aimed at protecting vulnerable person is repugnant to the rule of law and cannot be countenanced”.
I do hope that these women attempt to find a space for the possibility of conciliation in way forward. It would, perhaps, serve as an example to others.
— Judge Denise Fisher
“To add insult to what is indisputably an abuse, Ms Adams seeks to compound the position by mounting an opposition to this sensible attempt by Ms Watson to undo the result of the abuse. She thus seeks to prolong the wrong being done,” Fisher said.
“If the proceedings of this nature are weaponised to punish rather than to protect, this inevitably and axiomatically constitutes a breach of fundamental rights ... Every fibre of the respondent’s case seems strained to maintain the abusive order in place,” she said.
Commenting on magistrate Palesa Setshedi’s postponing of the matter to June 10, Fisher said: “The fact that the protections built into the machinery allowing an interim order to be challenged without delay have failed is one of the reasons why this is, to my mind, a clear case ... one of those cases where interference in the processes of a lower court is merited because of an abuse of such process.”
In her final epilogue, Fisher noted: “Here there are three women of substance. One is an educator, one a writer and another a businesswoman. In different circumstances they would view one another as sisters or friends. What has occurred is deeply unfortunate. The law will take its course in the criminal case.
“I do hope that these women attempt to find a space for the possibility of conciliation in the way forward. It would, perhaps, serve as an example to others,” she said.
Watson’s feelings in the days after her successful appeal were in line with Fisher’s sentiments.
Now allowed to speak out publicly about her ordeal, she said: “I woke up thinking I’ve won. But it’s actually been a deeply sh** experience for all three of us. It’s ruining our lives and it’s going to carry on. We’ve still got the criminal case.
“I’ve fantasised about this day for two months, thinking about how wonderful it will be to speak my truth and say what I want without fear. I thought it would be wonderful, but it just feels sh**. I take no delight in what’s happening to Candice.
“I wish Candice would just stop fighting. I want to tell her, ‘Put your sword down, accept the consequences graciously and admit you are wrong. Say you are sorry and make a change in your life, because if you are going around beating people up in the street, your life is not going well'.”
She welcomed the court’s decision that Adams must pay legal costs on a punitive scale, estimated at R200,000.
Mbazima, whose assault case against Adams returns to court this week, was happy with the outcome.
Watson’s attorney, Caleb McKellar, said: “We welcome the court’s decision. This is a clear and unequivocal judgment that reminds South Africans that any abuse of the Protection from Harassment Act will not be tolerated.”
Adams's counsel said: “Thank you for affording our client the opportunity to have her voice heard in what has been a trial by way of media against our client.”
Lawyer Nabeela Moola said Adams was studying the judgment and was not able to comment.
Part B of Watson’s high court application involves a request for the court to find that the definition of harassment in the Protection from Harassment Act be declared unconstitutional and invalid and parliament “correct the defect” within 18 months. The matter will be heard later this year.
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.