(FXI/IFEX) – The following is a 21 February 2007 FXI statement: Alert: FXI welcomes judgement in academic freedom case The Freedom of Expression Institute welcomes the judgement handed down yesterday by Magistrate IM Ristow of the Grahamstown Magistrates’ Court in which he dismissed (with costs) charges of defamation made by University of Kwazulu Natal head […]
(FXI/IFEX) – The following is a 21 February 2007 FXI statement:
Alert: FXI welcomes judgement in academic freedom case
The Freedom of Expression Institute welcomes the judgement handed down yesterday by Magistrate IM Ristow of the Grahamstown Magistrates’ Court in which he dismissed (with costs) charges of defamation made by University of Kwazulu Natal head of communications, Professor Dasarath Chetty, against Rhodes University academic Professor Jimi Adesina.
The case follows a series of emails last year, just before UKZN staff went on strike for better wages and working conditions. Before the strike began, Chetty’s office issued an email requesting “all staff who receive any media query related to the impending industrial action refer these calls” to his staff.
In response, Adesina sent an open letter to Chetty, accusing him of attempting to gag academics and of being an instrument of authoritarianism at the university. He also claimed Chetty had brought sociologists into disrepute. Chetty then sued Adesina for defamation.
In passionate testimony, Adesina argued that the issue was really about academic freedom. He said Chetty’s actions were typical of the beginning of the end for academic freedom on university campuses in other parts of Africa, and expressed concern that academic freedom and freedom of expression were under threat in South Africa, too.
The magistrate found that, given the prevailing circumstances at the university, Chetty’s letter “could very well be understood” as a gagging order. Adesina’s comments, the Magistrate said, showed no malice and were about “matters of public interest”.
The FXI has followed the never-ending saga over the past year at the UKZN and has repeatedly expressed concerns that the university was moving in a direction that was constraining free expression and academic freedom (see IFEX alert of 10 October 2006). Numerous instances of such attempts are listed in our letter to UKZN Vice-Chancellor Professor Malegapuru Makgoba (see http://www.fxi.org.za ). The Court’s finding vindicates our position.
We are concerned that Adesina’s fears about the academic landscape in South Africa are true: that there is a decreasing environment of academic freedom and that intellectual activity is being stymied by authoritarian tendencies. This is certainly the case at UKZN. Adesina’s victory is, thus, also a victory for academic freedom. Some South African tertiary institutions put impediments in the way of their academics’ ability to conduct research; some constrain the ability of students fully to express themselves politically, socially and intellectually.
We are further concerned in this matter that a large amount of money will be paid in legal costs and we call on UKZN to clarify to the public whether Chetty’s legal bills (and now Adesina’s as well) will be paid by the taxpayer. If it is the latter, then questions need to be asked about why the public should pay for an academic to pursue a frivolous case against a fellow academic in an attempt to gag him. A university that showed a massive deficit in the last financial year can ill-afford to squander money in this way.
We call on the Department of Education and the National Minister of Education, Naledi Pandor, to investigate this wastage of resources at UKZN and to bring to book those that are responsible. We further call on the minister to institute an investigation into the decreasing environment of academic freedom and freedom of expression at South African universities.
