The Evidentiary Value of Social Media Screenshots in South African Legal Proceedings

Introduction

The rapid expansion of digital communication has fundamentally altered the nature of evidence presented in South African courts. Social media platforms have become not only spaces for social interaction but also repositories of potential evidence in civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings.

Screenshots of social media posts are now frequently introduced in matters ranging from defamation and harassment to family law disputes and employment misconduct. This article examines the evidentiary value of such screenshots, the challenges they present, and the principles South African courts apply when determining their admissibility.

The Electronic Communications and Transactions Act (ECTA)

The starting point for understanding electronic evidence in South Africa is the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (ECTA). Section 15 provides that a data message should not be denied admissibility solely on the grounds that it is in electronic form. This provision ensures that electronic records, including screenshots, can be considered in the same manner as paper documents.

Electronic evidence remains subject to the ordinary requirements of admissibility: relevance, authenticity, and reliability. Courts will only admit screenshots if they are relevant to the dispute, can be shown to be what they purport to be, and are sufficiently reliable to be trusted. Additionally, the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988 governs hearsay considerations, which may arise when screenshots contain statements from third parties.

Challenges in Admitting Screenshots 

Authenticity and Alteration

 Screenshots are easily manipulated using basic editing software, raising concerns about their trustworthiness. Unlike server-based data directly extracted from social media platforms, screenshots are static images that provide limited verification of authorship, timestamps, or context. Courts, therefore, require additional evidence to establish authenticity.

Loss of Context

 Screenshots often capture only fragments of conversations, potentially misrepresenting the broader narrative. Selective presentation of evidence risks unfairness, particularly where the omitted portions could alter the meaning or tone of the captured content.

Burden of Proof

 The onus rests on the party seeking to introduce the screenshot to prove its authenticity. This is typically achieved through affidavits, oral testimony, or corroborating evidence. Without such proof, courts may reject the evidence or afford it little weight.

Judicial Treatment of Social Media Evidence

South African courts have demonstrated a willingness to admit social media evidence where authenticity can be established.

Defamation and Harassment Cases: In harassment interdicts, courts have accepted screenshots of threatening messages or defamatory posts, provided they were supported by corroboration, such as testimony from the victim.

Family Law Disputes: Screenshots have been introduced to demonstrate parental behaviour, lifestyle, or non-compliance with court orders.

Employment Matters: Disciplinary proceedings frequently rely on screenshots of posts that damage an employer’s reputation or reveal misconduct.

Conclusion

Screenshots from social media posts are an increasingly common form of evidence in South African legal proceedings. While admissible under ECTA, their reliability is not presumed to be established. Courts require parties to demonstrate authenticity, mitigate the risks of hearsay, and address concerns about alteration and context. The evidentiary weight of screenshots will therefore depend on careful preparation, corroboration, and procedural safeguards.

The evolving nature of digital communication necessitates that both courts and practitioners adapt, ensuring that justice keeps pace with technological advancements. In the absence of direct legislative reform, South African jurisprudence will continue to shape the principles governing the admissibility of social media evidence.

For further assistance, consult an attorney at SchoemanLaw. 

Robyn Shepherd | SchoemanLaw Inc  

Attorney