Fair is foul and foul is fair

In an era shaped by deception, manipulation and public spectacle, the themes explored by renowned playwright and poet William Shakespeare centuries ago continue to mirror the realities of politics, business and modern society. From smear campaigns and corruption to ambition, betrayal and power struggles, SHARMINI NAIDOO says the bard’s observations of human behaviour remain remarkably relevant today.

Shakespeare was a maestro at capturing the essence of his times and mirroring the intricacies of the human mind to illustrate betrayal, power, romance and the struggle between fate and free will. His literary works – popularised during the 16^th and 17^th centuries – included unforgettable characters and dynamic stagecraft that portrayed individuals disguising their true motives and masking malice to manipulate those around them.

From the unchecked ambition and tragic consequences of Macbeth, to the dangerous divide between appearance and reality and the corrosive spread of corruption in Hamlet, and the betrayal and deception that drive Julius Caesar, Shakespeare’s plays “depict emotional realities that transcend time” (Britannica).

We do not even have to look very far to see it in current events: the Iran-US war, a highly controversial extortion and corruption case struck off the roll because the prosecutor was unavailable, a crime intelligence agent allegedly staging his own assassination attempt, fabricated criminal claims, political fixers, reconstructed timelines, professional liars and false statements are all playing out around us in real time.

Politics, power and perception

With all the twists, turns and intricate lies woven into reality, it is often difficult to fathom the truth. Even the least gullible can be fooled. 

In South African politics, slander, defamation and smear campaigns have commonly been used as strategic weapons by politicians and corrupt officials to discredit whistleblowers, intimidate police investigators, silence journalists, cover up fraud, deflect attention and even score points for political parties.

During the height of State Capture and the Guptagate scandal, politicians frequently used state intelligence structures and public platforms to attack whistleblowers and investigative journalists. Although the Zondo Commission ultimately exposed many of these cover-ups, countless lives were affected and those who sought to tell the truth often paid a heavy price.

Probably our best-known cover-up emerged in 2017 when Bell Pottinger, notorious for “reputation laundering”, orchestrated a racially divisive and unethical propaganda campaign using fake Twitter accounts to protect the Gupta family and former president Jacob Zuma. Running a calculated “economic emancipation” campaign designed to exploit South Africa’s fragile racial dynamics and redirect public anger towards white-owned businesses and the wealthy, the “WMC” narrative quickly gained traction and fuelled public emotion.

Corporate deception and fallout

The Steinhoff deception became the largest corporate accounting fraud in South African business history. Involving a carefully crafted scheme that wiped out more than R220 billion in market value, it even slipped beneath the radar of major investment houses.

Creative accounting and fabricated transactions were used to artificially inflate profits, deceive investors and conceal massive debt. The eventual share-price collapse of more than 95% caused catastrophic losses for investors, institutions and pensioners.

Tongaat Hulett’s collapse was rooted in a multi-year fraud exceeding R3.5 billion, where former executives allegedly manipulated financial records to inflate profits and secure bonuses. The fraud was only uncovered following a change in leadership. This deception triggered a debt crisis, pushing the company into provisional liquidation and causing major disruption in the sugar industry.

The damage caused by smear campaigns

In the case of Trevor Manuel versus the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), the former finance minister was accused of nepotism and corruption relating to the appointment of a new South African Revenue Service (SARS) commissioner. The EFF claimed Manuel had improperly influenced the process for the benefit of associates. However, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the party’s statements were unlawful, defamatory and published without a legal basis. The court ordered the EFF to retract the statements and apologise.

Legally, Manuel was cleared of wrongdoing, but what remains in the minds of the public? Smear campaigns and defamatory statements can permanently damage an innocent person’s reputation and often leave lingering doubt. 

In South African law, defamation involves making wrongful and intentional statements that damage the reputation of a person or company. Slander (which is verbal defamation) and libel (which involves written or published statements, including on social media) are both forms of civil delict. While the Constitution protects freedom of expression, it does not protect statements that violate another person’s dignity and good name.

Defamation as a strategic weapon

Strategic defamation and slander have become common retaliatory tools. Whether used to conceal embezzlement, corruption, bribery and financial mismanagement, or simply to climb the corporate ladder by attacking a competitor’s character or spreading false rumours, the intention is
usually the same – to distract, shift the narrative, or portray oneself as the victim of malicious falsehoods while gaining favour among unsuspecting audiences.

Even covert workplace defamation tactics, such as the “Salami Technique” (or death by a thousand cuts), fall within this ambit. Instead of telling outright lies, aggressors use subtle innuendo, omit a colleague’s contributions, or engage in credit-grabbing behaviour to erode reputations over time.

According to legal experts, defamation often succeeds when malicious actors weaponise information asymmetry and exploit leadership’s fear of corporate liability. Boards are especially vulnerable because they are removed from daily operations and rely heavily on senior executives for information.

Because organisations often seek to minimise disruption, leadership may fail to investigate thoroughly, allowing slanderers to evade accountability and entrench false narratives. Any collusion among executives or board members makes it even harder for wrongly accused individuals to restore their credibility.

Legal recourse and harsh realities

According to Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr in “Safeguarding your good name: A podcast on defamation”, individuals whose reputations have been wrongfully attacked have several avenues for recourse, whether civil or potentially criminal:

• Cease and desist or retraction: Often the most practical first step is for an attorney to issue a letter of demand requesting a formal apology and retraction to limit reputational damage.

• Interdict: Individuals may approach the High Court for an interdict preventing further publication of harmful statements.

• Damages claim: A civil claim may be instituted for patrimonial loss, such as financial losses or job loss, as well as general damages for reputational harm and emotional distress.

Even where legal remedies exist, defamation litigation does not come without challenges and should be carefully considered. Such cases may never fully restore a person’s reputation and can sometimes inflict further damage – a concept often referred to as the folly of defamation.

In the end, perhaps the bard’s own words, spoken by Queen Margaret in Henry VI, remain the best advice: “Wise men ne’er sit and wail their loss but cheerly seek how to redress their harms.”

Whether that means standing one’s ground and fighting back – or walking away, adopting the advice of Coriolanus, and noting that “there is a world elsewhere” – remains a deeply personal choice.