Landmark agreement with Meta to combat child exploitation in South Africa
Image: Facebook
In a groundbreaking legal victory, the Digital Law Co (DLC) has secured an order in which Meta agreed to cooperate in the fight against child porn on its sites.
Over the past two weeks, Emma Sadleir and her team fought a fierce legal battle against Meta, the parent company of Instagram and WhatsApp, in a bid to have disturbing posts of children removed from public sites.
In the latest turn of events, DLC has secured a consent order, issued in the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, in which Meta has agreed to work closely with DLC.
This case arose in response to the widespread circulation of sexually exploitative material involving South African schoolchildren on Meta-owned platforms.
Meta had agreed to permanently remove, as far as is technically feasible, all Instagram accounts and WhatsApp Channels reported by DLC to them on behalf of victims, thereby cutting off public access to this deeply harmful material.
The digital giant also agreed to disclose subscriber information for over 60 offending accounts across both platforms, enabling victims and their families to pursue justice through appropriate legal avenues.
It will further establish a direct two-year hotline between The Digital Law Co and Meta to fast-track urgent child protection matters and ensure that future reports do not fall through the cracks.
Sadleir responded that this is a powerful affirmation of what can be achieved when the law is used not only as a shield, but as a sword in defence of the most vulnerable.
'We believe this is the first time in South African legal history that a global tech giant has agreed, in writing and court, to these kinds of terms. We hope it signals a turning point in how platforms respond to harm within our jurisdiction,' Sadleir said.
'The work is not done. Technology evolves. Harms migrate. But we have taken a stand - and we believe South Africa is safer for it,' Sadleir said.
Rorke Wilson of DLC, meanwhile, said part of the earlier court order has been complied with, as Meta has sent some details of the offending accounts, and more are expected to be sent on Wednesday.
The hotline has also been very responsive, as some accounts have been taken down quickly. Rorke said from what they have seen, the person or persons who are behind these offending posts seem to have the wind taken out of their sails as these accounts are now cut before they're able to grow too big.
Cape Times
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
29 minutes ago
- The Citizen
DJ Sumbody's murder exposes connection between crime and power
'The whole issue of killings of whistleblowers and assassinations generally is massively interlinked with procurement corruption.' DJ Sumbody at the Crypto Knight on 22 July 2022 in Midrand. Picture: Gallo Images/Oupa Bopape On a quiet November night in 2022, DJ Sumbody – a rising star in South Africa's music scene — was gunned down in a hail of bullets while heading home. Then, in April 2024, engineer Armand Swart was executed in a similar shooting after his company flagged a suspicious government tender in which prices had been inflated by over 4,500 percent. But dramatic arrests this week are tying those murders and many more together, exposing a murky underworld where criminals consort with political bigwigs for lucrative state tenders. The arrests came after explosive allegations by a senior police chief who accused the force and South Africa's police minister of a cover-up. ALSO READ: Malema accuses Kunene of lying about relationship with man accused of murdering DJ Sumbody Deep-rooted procurement corruption has seeped through every level of government for decades, security researcher David Bruce told AFP. 'The whole issue of killings of whistleblowers and assassinations generally is massively interlinked with that issue,' said Bruce, a consultant with the Institute for Security Studies. DJ Sumbody arrests Among those arrested this week are a former Johannesburg police officer at the time of DJ Sumbody's murder, as well as the prime suspect, a businessman named Katiso Molefe. British media have reported that a South African man of the same name and age as Molefe was sentenced to four years in prison in the United Kingdom in 2003 for drug trafficking. Two other men, already in custody for the 2023 attempted murder of former reality TV star turned influencer Tebogo Thobejane, are also believed to have played a role. It doesn't end there. ALSO READ: Firearms used in DJ Sumbody's murder linked to 10 other high-profile cases During the raid on Monday, police found prominent Johannesburg politician, Kenny Kunene, at Molefe's home. Kunene, a Johannesburg city council member, has since been suspended by his party leader, Sports Minister Gayton McKenzie, though police have not formally implicated him. Kunene denied any wrongdoing, saying he was merely trying to assist a journalist seeking to interview Molefe. 'Tenderpreneurs' At the centre of the widening web is businessman Vusimuzi 'Cat' Matlala, described locally as a 'tenderpreneur', a term referring to individuals who have made fortunes through government contracts. Also, the head of a private security firm, Matlala, was arrested in May in connection with the 2023 attempt on his ex-partner Thobejane's life. Thobejane, famous for her role in the long-running local soap opera Muvhango, denied having 'snitched' on Matlala earlier this month. 'I am a victim,' she told News24. In 2024, Matlala secured a $20 million contract with the national police — now cancelled — despite being implicated in a $125 million public hospital embezzlement scandal. ALSO READ: DJ Sumbody's family welcomes arrests of suspects, thank police The Tembisa hospital case cost whistleblower Babita Deokaran her life in 2021, when she was shot nine times outside her home. No arrests have been made in Deokaran's killing, reflecting the impunity that reigns, with only 11 percent of murders solved, according to 2024 police statistics. 'All these three cases are linked somehow,' police spokeswoman Athlenda Mathe said, referring to DJ Sumbody, Swart and Thobejane. Four weapons, including the AK-47 rifle used to kill DJ Sumbody, have been linked through ballistics to at least 10 high-profile cases, she added. Police minister accused The implications run deep. KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi last month accused colleagues and Police Minister Senzo Mchunu of burying investigations targeting Matlala. In a bombshell televised press conference, flanked by armed security forces, Mkhwanazi alleged Mchunu had received payments from a corruption suspect and accused prosecutors of delaying justice. 'We do hope that pretty soon we might find some changes with good dedicated prosecutors and we might see arrests happening,' he said, adding that cases of murdered artists would finally 'come to the fore'. President Cyril Ramaphosa has since suspended Mchunu and announced a judicial inquiry into the allegations. But there has been no tangible action. ALSO READ: DJ Sumbody's friend, DJ Vettys in a 'stable condition' says manager, after being shot South Africa faces one of the world's highest murder rates, averaging more than 75 killings a day. Politically motivated contract killings have surged 108 percent over the past decade, according to a 2024 report by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organised Crime. Studies show hiring a contract killer can cost as little as $145 in a country all too accustomed to violence. 'It's easier to silence someone with a bullet than contend with an investigation,' said Chad Thomas, head of private investigation company IRS Forensic.
Daily Maverick
9 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Who will steer the R55bn marriage of MultiChoice and Canal+?
There's a new power couple in African media. After nearly five years of courting, Canal+ has finally put a ring on MultiChoice to form a pan-African content colossus with global ambitions. French media titan Canal+ has secured the final go-ahead to acquire MultiChoice in a landmark R55-billion deal. After years of quiet manoeuvring and regulatory hurdles, the merger is now a question of who controls what. The Competition Tribunal's conditional approval, granted late last week, closes the chapter on a five-year 'creeping takeover' and opens a new era in African broadcasting. Now it's a balancing act weighing foreign capital with national sovereignty on a digital scale with local content. Enter the media monarchy In return for its princely sum, Canal+, owned by the French conglomerate Vivendi, gets access to MultiChoice's 14.5 million Anglophone and Lusophone subscribers, the DStv powerhouse, sports juggernaut SuperSport, and a foothold in streaming via Showmax. MultiChoice, facing rising costs and subscriber declines, finds itself rescued by a suitor with deep pockets and pan-African ambition. Combined, the merged entity will serve more than 24 million subscribers across 50 countries — instantly becoming the largest pay-TV and streaming provider on the continent. However, if Canal+ was hoping for free access, South African regulators had other plans. The deal's approval came wrapped in layers of red tape — not as a deterrent, but as a deliberate design feature. Transformation goals Central to the regulatory conditions is the creation of LicenceCo, an independent company that will hold MultiChoice South Africa's broadcast licence. It will be majority-owned and controlled by historically disadvantaged South Africans and employees. Crucially, Canal+ has no control and no board seats. This structural firewall protects South Africa's legal requirements around media ownership, ensures transformation goals are met and serves as a template for foreign investment in other sensitive sectors. Phuthuma Nathi, the B-BBEE shareholder darling, increases its economic interest in LicenceCo to 27%, with a new employee trust added. The licence, and the local airwaves it governs, stay South African. The R30bn lobola The Competition Tribunal didn't just demand structural separation; it also extracted a commitment package valued at more than R30-billion. This includes: A three-year moratorium on retrenchments linked to the merger; Significant investment in local content production, sports broadcasting, SMME procurement and Corporate Social Investment programmes; Ongoing free-to-air broadcast access for key sporting events, safeguarding the public's ability to view major matches without a subscription; and Local skills development through Canal+'s 'University Programme', to train historically disadvantaged individuals in broadcasting and production. In a media environment where Netflix and Amazon Prime are increasingly dominant, this local-first approach is designed to future-proof South African media. Showmax, SuperSport and scale Behind the regulatory muscle lies a clear commercial imperative. MultiChoice has struggled in recent years, shedding 2.8 million linear subscribers and burning cash to prop up Showmax 2.0, its streaming reboot built on Comcast tech and bolstered by NBC Universal's 30% equity stake. Canal+ brings financial stability and scale. It also inherits Irdeto, MultiChoice's profitable cybersecurity unit, and Showmax's potential to become Africa's answer to global streamers. Vivendi, Canal+'s parent company, views this merger as critical to its own transformation and part of a plan to split into three listed entities, with Canal+ as its global growth engine. Listing Canal+ on the JSE within nine months of deal completion is a further nod to local inclusion, visibility, and capital market confidence. The shiny ring can't cover controversial holes While South Africa celebrates a structurally sound deal with tangible local benefits, not all observers are convinced. Critics warn that Canal+'s track record and the Bolloré Group's 30.4% stake in it come with baggage. Vivendi's past includes one of the largest corporate losses in history and regulatory infractions that still cast a shadow. Vincent Bolloré, the billionaire behind the curtain, faces corruption charges in France and has been accused of turning Canal+'s French media outlets into right-wing political mouthpieces. With Canal+ now embedded in South Africa's broadcasting ecosystem, some fear creeping influence over editorial independence, particularly if there are future attempts to deepen ownership or control beyond the current firewall. Marriage isn't buying a horse Mergers are easy to announce but hard to manage. However, the competition bodies have played their hand cleverly — extracting commitments, safeguarding jobs and setting a precedent for how global capital must behave when it enters South Africa's strategic sectors. The long-term test lies ahead. Can Showmax truly compete with Netflix? Can SuperSport keep its sports crown as global streamers outbid for rights? Will LicenceCo be a transformative force or a regulatory box-ticker? Will Canal+ respect the firewall, or try to chip away at it over time? The merged entity is now king of the hill in African broadcasting, but it's a kingdom that won't run on size alone. Trust, execution and transformation will be the currencies of success. DM
Daily Maverick
9 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The Finance Ghost: The battle for MAS is over – now begins the war?
With Hyprop terminating its bid for MAS Real Estate, Prime Kapital has won the first skirmish. But the war is in its early stages… MAS Real Estate is the company that nobody expected to become the juiciest M&A story on the JSE this year. All the ingredients are here – big hitters on either side of the table and a board in the middle that is coming under increasing pressure by the day. And depending on the outcome of the extraordinary general meeting that has been scheduled for Wednesday, 27 August, at the request of a group of South African institutional investors, we could see an equally big hitter like Des de Beer landing up on the board as well. But why all this interest and opportunistic dealmaking activity? Why are such impressive sharks circling this particular boat? Blood in the water Although MAS isn't exactly a household name, it does have a market cap of R15.6-billion. Despite this significant size, MAS has been struggling to prepare for upcoming bond maturities, flagging weak support in the bond market for companies with MAS' risk profile. This led to the suspension of the MAS dividend in 2023 and subsequent panic selling by dividend-focused investors. Then, as various other strategies to strengthen the balance sheet came to fruition, investors with more of a net asset value (NAV) or total return focus (vs purely caring about the dividend yield) bought shares, leading to a recovery in the share price to levels seen before the panic selling. But here's the really important bit: the current share price still represents a substantial discount to NAV, which means that there's money to be made by getting control of the assets and managing the balance sheet in such a way that value can be unlocked over time. A lot of money. And in reality, the progress made by MAS towards being ready for bond refinancing or redemption activity is probably the major catalyst for the recent flurry of interest, as the best time to acquire control of a business is when it is still a recovery story rather than a bright and shiny object that everyone loves (and hence wants to be paid a fortune to part with). Either way, the substantial gap between the 52-week high of R24.65 and 52-week low of R15.76 tells quite a story, with plenty of opportunities for traders along the way. But aside from the short-term gains (and losses) on offer, the real story here is the battle between Prime Kapital and Hyprop, with both parties keen to get their hands on the MAS value unlock opportunity. Disclosure, dividends and liquidity – these are the tools of war In the world of corporate finance, parties bring different negotiating tactics to the table. At Prime Kapital for example, one of their key strengths in this fight is that they hold the keys to unlocking the capital that is currently tied up in the joint venture between MAS and Prime Kapital. With so much focus on the balance sheet at MAS and a desire to get back to paying dividends, that capital is a highly valuable bargaining chip. This joint venture has been a major bone of contention for institutional investors, with allegations that the board of MAS didn't disclose important elements of the joint venture agreement to the market. Simply put, investors have been caught by surprise that Prime Kapital holds quite so much influence over the broader MAS balance sheet and cashflow profile. This has led to the demand by investors for changes to the board, which would include the removal of a couple of directors and the appointment of several new independent directors. The 'white knight' for these investors is Hyprop, a JSE-listed Reit (real estate investment trust) that is well known to the local institutional investor community. Such is the support that Hyprop enjoys that it had no difficulties in raising more than R800-million in an accelerated bookbuild process, based on little more than a vague suggestion that it would have a go at acquiring MAS if it raised the money. But of course, R800-million is nowhere near enough to acquire control in a fund with a market cap of R15.6-billion, which brings us to the next negotiating point: liquidity of the shares. For Prime Kapital to acquire control of MAS, it needs to convince shareholders to accept a part-cash, part-shares deal. Although it is currently suggesting that it would put more cash on the table than Hyprop (which is a positive), the downside to its indicative offer is that the equity portion would take the form of an inward-listed preference share that is unlikely to have much liquidity at all. The actual terms of the preference shares do have some appealing features, but they will almost certainly require investors to take a long-term view of holding them until some kind of redemption event. In contrast, Hyprop shares are liquid and investors who swap their MAS exposure for shares in Hyprop would have no trouble in reducing that stake if required. The Hyprop offer is thus perceived as having a stronger equity portion, while the Prime Kapital indicative terms are stronger on the cash side. Understanding these levers is important, as it shows how we got to a place where Hyprop put in a bid that was terminated almost as quickly as it arrived. A highly unusual offer structure Offers to shareholders are usually open for a long time, as there's a process in which the board of the target company is given a chance to hire an independent expert and give the market a proper view on the transaction. Such offers are also usually open for acceptance even once important conditions have been met, allowing shareholders to accept an offer that they know is going ahead. And in most cases, those conditions are outside of the control of the offeror, i.e. they relate to regulatory approvals. The Hyprop offer followed none of these market norms. Before Hyprop decided to terminate the bid, the structure of the offer was that it would have been open for acceptance for only a few days from when it was announced. This doesn't give the board time to properly opine on the terms, nor does it give enough time for any of the important underlying conditions to be fulfilled. In other words, investors would have to accept the offer (via an irrevocable undertaking) and then wait and see how long it would take for conditions to be met. But there's more: one of the conditions was a demand by Hyprop to be given the same access to information as Prime Kapital, which of course ties in beautifully with the institutional investors and their valid concerns around disclosure shortcomings. Now, had there been no attempt to address those shortcomings, this would be fair. But the nuance here is that the MAS board had already released a detailed legal summary of the terms, so this demand by Hyprop implied that there were still significant disclosure issues. If true, that casts the MAS board in a very poor light. And if false, then it creates inappropriate optionality in the offer that prejudices shareholders who must give an irrevocable undertaking in the hope that Hyprop eventually chooses to go ahead with closing the offer, something that could take several months. As the demand by Hyprop wasn't going to be met by Prime Kapital (as this would've required detailed disclosure of documents by a party that is in no mood to cooperate with Hyprop's bid terms), Hyprop decided to walk away from this offer. Much as it may lay the blame at the door of poor disclosure, I still can't see how they could justify such an aggressive offer structure. Why was it necessary for the acceptance period to be just one week, particularly when the price implied by the offer was at a substantial discount to the current traded price of MAS? What's next? With Hyprop terminating its bid, Prime Kapital has won the first skirmish. But the war is in its early stages, as we are still talking about a substantial property fund that is trading at a juicy discount. Will Hyprop stay in this fight? Will another party enter the fray? There's no way of knowing. All we know is that Prime Kapital certainly isn't going anywhere, as it is a significant minority shareholder in MAS and holds great influence over its economics. We also know that the institutions won't just roll over, as they are pushing for changes to the board and answers about disclosure. It feels unlikely that this will just fizzle out. All eyes will now be on the extraordinary general meeting in August, followed by the responses of the (potentially new) board to the institutional investor questions. If nothing else, perhaps the lesson to learn here is that if you are going to attempt an offer with highly unusual terms, you are setting yourself up for an unpleasant outcome. Had Hyprop simply dialled back some of the terms to more reasonable levels, it wouldn't have given Prime Kapital so much ammunition to discredit its bid. DM
