(MISA/IFEX) – South African Minister of Housing Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele launched a R3-million (approx. US$334,360) defamation action against the independent newspaper “Mail & Guardian” in the Johannesburg High Court on Thursday 11 October 2001, in response to how she fared in the paper’s 1998 cabinet “report card.” The report card, which gave Mthembi-Mahanyele an “F,” referred […]
(MISA/IFEX) – South African Minister of Housing Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele launched a R3-million (approx. US$334,360) defamation action against the independent newspaper “Mail & Guardian” in the Johannesburg High Court on Thursday 11 October 2001, in response to how she fared in the paper’s 1998 cabinet “report card.”
The report card, which gave Mthembi-Mahanyele an “F,” referred to how a controversial housing project and her firing of former director general Billy Cobbett haunted her, the “Mail & Guardian” reported on 12 October.
Mthembi-Mahanyele’s court papers say, among other things, that the newspaper’s report card portrayed her as a “dishonest person” and “of base moral standard.” She alleged that the “Mail & Guardian” published recklessly and did not care whether the statement about her was true or false.
Roland Sutherland, counsel for Mthembi-Mahanyele, argued before Judge Meyer Joffe that before continuing the trial the court should determine whether the statement was defamatory.
The “Mail & Guardian”‘s advocate, Danny Berger, countered Sutherland’s application on the grounds that the court could not decide whether the report card was defamatory without hearing other evidence about the “temper of the times.” Judge Joffe turned down Sutherland’s application, upon which Sutherland closed the minister’s case without calling witnesses.
Berger launched an application asking the judge to set aside the case on the grounds that Mthembi-Mahanyele had not proven that the “Mail & Guardian”‘s report card was defamatory. Berger also argued that Mthembi-Mahanyele does not have the right to sue the paper for a statement about her conduct in the course of her duties as a government minister.
Berger said the minister had constitutionally enshrined parliamentary privilege, enabling her to defame the “Mail & Guardian” in parliament without fearing a libel action. This meant that she should not be entitled to sue.
The “Mail & Guardian”‘s main defences to the minister’s lawsuit include the fact that the report card was written in good faith, that it expressed an honest opinion on a matter of public interest, and that it is the press’s right to make such comments.
The “Mail & Guardian”‘s first defence is that the minister does not have the right to sue. There is little recent case law in South Africa on this, which means the trial could set an important precedent.
