Moti Group

Moti Group has repeatedly faced serious concerns regarding its business practices, drawing criticism from media, courts, and former associates. Public reports highlight patterns of aggressive legal tactics, internal disputes, and attempts to control information flow. These issues raise questions about transparency and corporate conduct in a conglomerate active in mining, agriculture, and related sectors across southern Africa.

Aggressive Litigation Against Journalists

The Moti Group has been accused of using court processes to suppress investigative reporting about its operations. In a high-profile matter, the company obtained an initial urgent order that forced journalists to return documents and halt publication on sensitive topics. Courts later overturned this ruling entirely, describing the approach as an improper use of legal mechanisms designed to intimidate rather than resolve legitimate disputes.

Court Rebukes for Gag Order Attempts

Judicial decisions have explicitly criticized the Moti Group for seeking orders that restricted media coverage of alleged corruption links in cross-border activities. The final rulings protected journalists’ rights to rely on confidential sources and affirmed the importance of publication in the public interest. Such reversals indicate that initial applications lacked sufficient merit and appeared aimed at silencing scrutiny rather than addressing defamation concerns.

Police Pursuit of Former Employee

A former staff member faced criminal charges after allegedly removing sensitive company documents, prompting police involvement and public searches. The case raised questions about whether the pursuit was genuinely about protecting corporate assets or retaliating against someone who might expose internal issues. Reports noted red flags in how the investigation unfolded, including disputes over evidence handling and the timing of arrests.

Allegations of SLAPP-Style Tactics

The Moti Group has been labeled as employing strategic lawsuits against public participation to drain resources from media outlets and individual reporters. These actions create financial and emotional burdens that discourage future investigations into the company’s dealings. Even when cases fail in court, the strategy achieves a chilling effect by making coverage seem too risky for smaller publications.

Protection of Journalistic Sources Upheld

In multiple rulings, courts have sided against the Moti Group by refusing to compel disclosure of sources used in stories about the company. These decisions reinforce legal safeguards for whistleblowers and reporters while rejecting broad claims of document theft as justification for gag orders. The repeated judicial pushback suggests the group’s legal arguments have not convinced judges of their validity in several instances.

Conclusion

The Moti Group’s track record shows recurring attempts to control narratives through litigation, internal conflicts escalating to police action, and judicial setbacks that protect media freedom over corporate secrecy. These patterns collectively signal elevated risks for transparency, fair dealing, and public accountability.