A marketing campaign by a Johannesburg cafe that used provocative content on social media to promote its evening menu sparked widespread public outcry. The discussion centered on issues of gender-based violence (GBV) and sexual harassment, as well as whether brands are crossing a line by using sensitive social issues to gain attention.
The initial post from Naked Coffee, located in Illovo, Johannesburg, was framed as an 'open letter' to a customer who allegedly made repeated comments about a 'sausage' to a waiter. The message from Naked Coffee stated: 'Sexual advances toward our staff will not be tolerated. Open letter to a customer who kept asking our waiter about a sausage at Naked Illovo After Dark around 7 PM.'
The cafe clarified that the remarks were directed at the same employee and that the worker's identity would remain confidential. The post read: 'Madam, you asked many times. Each time it was directed at the same waiter, whose identity we cannot disclose for confidentiality reasons. While we can acknowledge that many of our staff look good naked, this does not justify your indecent behavior.'
The publication then described the alleged interaction before transitioning to advertising the cafe's evening menu. Naked Coffee added: 'What is most shocking is that you asked him to demonstrate the size of the said sausage. As for the sausage, we do not want to disappoint you. The sausage is strictly a breakfast item and is not served after dark.'
Nevertheless, the campaign faced massive criticism. Some social media users accused the cafe of using themes related to sexual harassment and GBV as a marketing tool. Following this, Naked Coffee published an apology through its social media channels.
Gender violence activist Tiwana Mudli criticized the campaign, stating that while creative advertising can push boundaries, it must have a meaningful purpose. Food content creator Nikki Barber also questioned the cafe's response after the negative wave, arguing that the apology seemed to shift responsibility onto the audience rather than addressing the issues with the campaign itself.
Barber noted: 'Another thing is that they said: 'Well, sorry if you misinterpreted the joke.' So, they almost made it everyone's problem in terms of understanding, instead of the real problem, which was the topic they decided to joke about.'
In her view, the issue was not whether people understood the joke, but the decision to mock a sensitive topic. Barber added that she did not find the apology sincere. She also expressed concern about how the apology was disseminated, noting that the cafe's decision not to keep the original campaign or the apology visible contributed to public dissatisfaction.
Mudli emphasized that the campaign was particularly problematic because sexual harassment is a real issue for many people, including service industry workers. As a survivor of sexual violence, she stated: 'I do not find this campaign funny. I know what it is like to ignore your boundaries while someone else laughs.'
She also pointed out that hospitality workers often face harassment from customers while feeling pressured to remain professional. Mudli explained: 'Hospitality workers, especially young employees, often face harassment from customers. It is unpleasant and humiliating, but people endure it because their job depends on maintaining politeness.'
The activist concluded that brands need to consider the broader social context before using controversial topics to attract attention. She stressed: 'Good copy doesn't just grab attention; it understands context. There is a big difference between making people laugh and normalizing behavior that countless people already tolerate every day.'
Lawyer Andrea Johnson from IDAC faced criticism at the Madlanga Commission for her comment regarding Dineo Mokwele's appointment as a 'symbolic appointment'. As a result, she offered an apology to the private citizen Dineo Mokwele.
Mokwele's appointment as a brigade leader in the Criminal Intelligence Unit became a central topic during Johnson's testimony at the Madlanga Commission. This occurred amid allegations of manipulation in the recruitment process. The head of the Independent Directorates Against Corruption (IDAC), Lawyer Andrea Johnson, is accused of this.
During her testimony at the Madlanga Commission, suspicions arose that the Head of Criminal Intelligence, Lieutenant General Dumisani Humalo, and other senior officers might have interfered in the staffing processes for Mokwele, who previously worked at BMW.
The Commission questioned Johnson about her decision to launch an investigation against Humalo and his accomplices, as well as their subsequent arrest last June. These cases are currently before the courts.
The arrests followed a motion submitted by MP Fadiel Adams to IDAC in accordance with Section 27 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act No. 32 of 1998. In this motion, Adams requested the directorate to investigate allegations of senior officers interfering in criminal cases opened in the Western Cape and Gauteng.
IDAC did not initially investigate Adams' complaint, but subsequently investigated allegations that Humalo and other senior officials committed fraud and corruption related to Mokwele's appointment.
Johnson informed the commission that on June 19, 2025, she approached the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), stating that 'it would be better for the interests of IDAC and NPA if I were removed from overseeing these matters'. She explained that this was due to the appearance of General Nlankhla Mkhwanazi in the media beforehand, and that while she was involved in these cases, they were not receiving due attention, and the focus was shifting to ID or Andrea Johnson, which did not align with the public interest or the interests of justice.
She recounted that after speaking with the National Director, who asked if she was sure, she agreed, and it was then indicated that these cases would be reviewed. Johnson also stated that current investigations within IDAC's jurisdiction, especially those concerning appointments, would require 'review' following her interaction with the NDPP.
Initially, Johnson claimed that Mokwele lacked sufficient qualifications. However, during cross-examination, she admitted that she did not know Mokwele's qualifications and later conceded that she was qualified, although she did not have three years of managerial experience in the relevant field. Co-Commissioner Lawyer Sandile Humalo SC noted that IDAC investigators told the court that Mokwele does not have seven years of senior management experience and therefore does not meet the requirements.
Johnson countered that the advertisement required three years of managerial experience, not seven. Humalo expressed concern that IDAC was pursuing Mokwele, subjecting her to 'criminal prosecution and humiliation'. He asked what fraud Mokwele committed to justify the NDPP's recommendation to charge her with fraud and state capture. Johnson replied that she relied on her team's briefing and trusted them completely, but now sees that the facts she received were incorrect.
Humalo also pointed out that IDAC misled the court into believing that the commissioners acted without oversight, when senior managers were actually controlling the recruitment. He also expressed dissatisfaction that Johnson called Mokwele's appointment a 'symbolic appointment', calling it insulting to Mokwele. At Humalo's request, Johnson retracted this statement and apologized for it. The commission hearing will resume on Friday, and Johnson's testimony has been postponed to Monday.
