Of course there's a message about rape, specifically the violation of Justice, and it's not plain why this falls outside the ambit of messaging or communication. Nothing in legislation or precedent excludes images or even gestures. All the plaintiff needs establish is what inference or meaning is to be drawn by the proverbial Reasonable Man, and show how that inference or meaning is injurious to his reputation. As far as I know, the only rebuttal for the Defendants is truth or public interest, and that will be very hard to show. If this ever comes to court I think the Defendants will have a hard time rebutting that it is injurious. The interesting part comes when the court has to determine the extent of the damages - and here the Plaintiff might well end with considerably less than he expects, perhaps even a Pyrrhic victory. I can imagine Zuma winning and getting R1 in damages.
The cartoon message is offensive -- otherwise the implication is that there is nothing offensive about Zuma's actions and words, which is surely not a sense you wish to convey. Defendants will aver that the plainly offensive messages are true and in the public interest to publicise. This will not be easy.
Sign up with Google