Hertta-Maria Amutenja
Affirmative Repositioning (AR) leader and presidential candidate, Job Amupanda has filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Namibia, challenging the recent defamation judgement against him.
The appeal follows the High Court’s ruling last month, which awarded deputy finance and public enterprises minister, Maureen Hinda N$100 000 in damages.
The appeal contests three main points from High Court Judge Collin Parker’s ruling: the judgment amount, interest on the amount, and the order to pay Hinda’s legal costs.
In his appeal, Amupanda argues that the court erred in its findings. He contends that the photograph shared on Facebook, which was alleged to portray Hinda, should have been considered a fair comment or satire rather than defamatory.
“The court a quo erred in not upholding the appellant’s defence that the photograph constituted a fair comment through political satire,” the appeal states.
Amupanda further argues that the court misinterpreted the photograph and failed to properly attribute the defamatory statements. He also disputes the quantum of damages awarded, suggesting that an apology would have been a more appropriate remedy.
The dispute began in July 2021, when Amupanda shared a photograph on Facebook depicting an unidentified woman with jeans, a white T-shirt, and white-rimmed sunglasses.
The caption initially identified the woman as Hinda, but it later changed to “Looks like.” Hinda alleged that the post was defamatory, portraying her as “a street girl ready to fight at a moment’s notice.”
Amupanda further compounded the issue with a tweet in January 2022, implying that Hinda’s legal action was a response to rejected romantic advances.
Hinda argued that both the Facebook post and the tweet were defamatory and exposed her to ridicule.
In his judgement, Parker found the photograph defamatory, noting it exposed Hinda to ridicule. Parker dismissed Amupanda’s defences of truth and fair comment, concluding that the tweet implied Hinda’s retaliation for rejected advances, which was also considered defamatory.
Approached for comment, Hinda said she had no prior knowledge of the appeal and requested to see the documents before commenting.
