INTRODUCTION

The Constitutional Court’s decision in Botha v Smuts and Another [2025] (1) SA 581 (CC) explores the delicate balance between the Constitutional right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression. The dispute arose when a conservationist, the Respondent, published a Facebook post condemning the trapping of animals on Mr Botha, the Applicant’s, farm. The post included the Applicant’s name, images of the Applicant’s farm, business details, and, controversially, his residential address. The argument for the Applicant challenged this disclosure, arguing that it violated his right to privacy enshrined in section 14 of the Constitution¹ and placed him and his family at risk.

The case required the court to determine whether information that was already available to the public, such as the Applicant’s business details and farm ownership, could still be protected under the right to privacy. Additionally, the dispute questioned whether the Respondent’s right to the freedom of expression, protected in section 16 of the Constitution², outweighed the Applicant’s privacy concerns.

THE COURT’S RULING

The High Court found in favour of the Applicant, concluding that even publicly available information may be limited if it poses a risk of personal harm. Conversely, the Supreme Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision arguing that the post was justified due to the public debate on animal welfare, and that the disclosed information was already known by the public. Ultimately, the Constitutional Court ruled that while the details of the farm and the business did not require privacy protection due to their public and commercial nature, the publication of the Applicant’s residential address was unjustified and posed a safety risk. The court ordered that references to his residential address be removed, emphasising that even in matters of public interest, personal security must be protected.