NEWSDAY ATTACKED

Publication’s website knocked offline as fight over government and iSwiss special economic zones story rages on

Google sucked into controversy

A single, demonstrably flawed defamation complaint was enough to briefly knock Newsday’s website offline on Thursday, disrupting the newspaper’s operations on the eve of publication and exposing how easily bad-faith complaints can be weaponised against independent journalism.

The temporary blackout came after web-hosting company Hostinger notified Newsday that it had received a complaint alleging that an article published by the newspaper was defamatory of “Jos Buttler.”

The article does not mention Jos Buttler.

In correspondence sent to Newsday, Hostinger’s abuse department stated: “Please be informed that HOSTINGER has received a defamation complaint regarding specific content on your website newsdayonline.co.ls that it is alleged to be defamatory for another person, i.e. Jos Buttler.”

The complaint identified the article titled: iSwiss ‘lovebirds’, and Shelile …A scam-like deal collapses amid media attention.

Hostinger requested that Newsday either remove the content or justify its publication.

“We take matters of defamation seriously, as they can have significant legal and reputational implications. Please kindly take a moment to review the mentioned content and either remove it as soon as possible or provide clarification and any supporting information if you consider the content accurate and lawful.”

The hosting company warned that failure to respond, or repeated complaints, could result in suspension of the website under its Terms of Service.

By the time Newsday read the email, however, the damage had already been done.

The publication’s website had already gone dark.

Its email system was also inaccessible, preventing the newsroom from sending or receiving correspondence.

The timing could scarcely have been worse.

The shutdown occurred on Thursday, one day before publication, effectively cutting the newspaper off from advertisers and sources during one of the busiest production periods of the week.

Rather than capitulate, the editorial team immediately reviewed the complaint.

The Editorial Team’s conclusion was unequivocal.

“The complaint is entirely without merit and appears to be fundamentally mistaken or frivolous,” Newsday told Hostinger.

“Our primary and conclusive defence is as follows: The article does not mention Jos Buttler.”

The newspaper said it had conducted “a complete word-by-word review” of the article and found that it concerned only Lesotho’s proposed Special Economic Zones policy, former Trade Minister Mokhethi Shelile, the company iSwiss, its directors Christopher Aleo and Simona Jakstaite, and former ministry official Lesole Maleke.

“Nowhere in the article does the name ‘Jos Buttler’ appear,” Newsday wrote.

“There is no reference to his profession, his nationality, his personal life, or any other identifying characteristic that could reasonably connect him to the content.”

The newspaper further argued that the complaint collapsed on one of the most basic principles of defamation law.

“A statement cannot be defamatory to a person if it does not refer to them, either explicitly or by clear implication,” Newsday wrote.

“Since Jos Buttler is not named, described or identifiable in the article, he has no legal standing to bring this complaint.”

The newspaper also noted that the complaint failed to identify any allegedly defamatory statement concerning Buttler because none existed.

“The complaint appears to have been filed in error or without proper review of the content.”

Newsday further defended the article as investigative journalism based on official government documents, public company records and on-the-record interviews concerning matters of significant public interest.

The editorial team requested Hostinger to reject the complaint, inform the complainant that the claim was invalid and refrain from taking any action against the publication.

“We are committed to upholding journalistic standards and legal compliance,” Newsday wrote.

“However, we cannot and will not remove content based on a complaint that is demonstrably false in its fundamental premise.”

At approximately 6:15 p.m., Hostinger restored the website.

But the incident did not occur in isolation.

It is the latest chapter in what increasingly appears to be a sustained campaign targeting Newsday’s reporting on iSwiss and the Lesotho government’s proposed Special Economic Zones arrangement.

The truth of this affair is far more sinister. The complaint about “Jos Buttler” is a smokescreen.

The real target is the original October 2024 investigative report, “iSwiss ‘Lovebirds’, and Shelile”, which laid bare the alarming speed with which the government had embraced a company that, by all appearances, is little more than a social media mirage.

The story detailed how iSwiss, supposedly a “Swiss financial group,” and its principals, Christopher Aleo and his fiancée Simona Jakstaite, had been fast-tracked into Lesotho’s draft Special Economic Zones policy, a document that this publication said reads more like a contract for a private takeover than a developmental framework.

The story did not just raise questions about the government’s due diligence but also raised eyebrows about Aleo and Jakstaite themselves. Described as “Internet Personalities” with backgrounds in fashion and film production, rather than finance, the couple’s credibility was put under the microscope. The article noted that their lavish Instagram lifestyle was a hallmark of a platform “commonly associated with influencers and, at times, scammers.”

That words, a scam-like deal, in the headline is what triggered the wrath.

On April 19 and 20, 2026, Newsday received a barrage of threatening legal notices from a “Mr. Irfan Karim,” purportedly representing iSwiss and Christopher Aleo.

“Your newspaper published a front-page headline calling iSwiss a ‘scam-like deal’. No court. No regulator. No finding of fraud. You have no evidence of any scam – only suspicion and innuendo,” the emails thundered.

They were dripping with aggression: “You have destroyed a company’s reputation in an entire country with one word: ‘scam’. Remove it now.”

The emails demanded that the newspaper remove the article within six hours, later extending the ultimatum to twelve hours, apologise publicly, retract the story, purge archived copies, seek Google’s removal of cached versions and certify compliance.

They further demanded a staggering M5 Million in damages.

The publication rejected those demands.

The threat was unmistakable. If Newsday did not comply, criminal defamation charges, which under Lesotho’s Penal Code carry the threat of imprisonment, would be filed against the editor.

It is a perverse irony. Those who cloak themselves in the trappings of a “Swiss bank” but are unable to produce a credible business footprint have the gall to lecture a newspaper on truthfulness.

To call their deal “scam-like” is not defamation, but is a statement of objective fact.

Then, in May, a new front opened.

Google, the world’s most powerful search engine, notified Newsday that someone had submitted a copyright complaint seeking removal of the same material from search results worldwide.

“Google has been notified that your site allegedly infringes upon the copyrights of others and violates applicable copyright laws in your region,” read the notice from Google.

“It is Google’s policy to remove copyrighted content when the copyright holder or their authorised representative alleges that a use is infringing. Therefore, we are in the process of removing the reported content from Google search results for users globally.”

The copyright claim was yet another transparent attempt to silence the publication. Having failed to intimidate Newsday with defamation threats, the same parties had now weaponised copyright law to scrub the article from internet search results.

Newsday challenged that complaint by filing a formal counter-notice.

Now, months later, the same reporting has become the subject of a defamation complaint that temporarily disabled the newspaper’s entire website, this time through its hosting provider.

The decision by Hostinger to take down the site, on a flimsy, transparently false complaint, is a chilling precedent. It demonstrates how easily global web hosts can be weaponised by the powerful to silence the press, even when the complaint is demonstrably a lie.

The progression, from legal threats, to copyright complaints, to defamation allegations directed at infrastructure providers rather than courts, raises troubling questions about attempts to suppress journalism through procedural pressure rather than judicial scrutiny.

Whether deliberate or not, such complaints exploit automated moderation systems that frequently act first and investigate later.

The consequences extend far beyond one disputed article.

When a news organisation can lose access to its website, email systems, and advertisers because of a complaint naming a person who is not even mentioned in the article, the issue ceases to be merely about defamation.

It becomes a question of whether digital intermediaries are inadvertently enabling censorship by accusation.

Newsday maintains that it stands by its reporting.

It also maintains that complaints alleging defamation should be determined on evidence and law, not on assertions so fundamentally defective that they identify a complainant absent from the publication altogether.