The Pretoria High Court has struck an appeal against the United Democratic Movement (UDM) and its leader Bantubonke Holomisa off the roll.
This after three companies together with their owners took Holomisa to court for defaming their businesses.
In 2018, Lebashe Investment Group (Pty) Ltd, an investment holding company, Harith General Partners (Pty) Ltd and Harith Fund Managers (Pty) Ltd together with former Deputy Minister of Finance Jabulani Moleketi, Tshepo Mahloele and Gregory Wheatley, issued summons against Holomisa and his party, seeking R2-million in damages for defamation and crimen injuria.
Lebashe is an investment holding company, while Harith General Partners and Harith Fund Managers operate as fund managers, investing on behalf of their investors in infrastructure projects across Africa.
Defamatory letter
Their claims arose from two publications alleged to be defamatory, a letter written by Holomisa.
The letter was written in June 2018, with the UDM’s official letterhead and addressed to the President of the Republic of South Africa, and made available to the public.
According to the companies, the letter titled Unmasking Harith’s and Lebashe’s Alleged Fleecing of the Public Investment Corporation, was intended and understood by an ordinary reader of reasonable intelligence to suggest that the businesses and directors were deeply involved in a longstanding and escalating corrupt scheme.
The second publication was a tweet posted on UDM’s account on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) on July 2018, where Moleketi and others were referred to as “hyenas”.
This scheme allegedly implicated the then CEO of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC), a state-owned vehicle and asset-management company established in terms of section 3 of the Public Investment Corporation Act 23 of 2004 and Moleketi, who served as a non-executive director of Lebashe and chairman of Harith General and Harith Fund.
Admitted to publishing the contents
Holomisa admitted to publishing the material and acknowledged that it concerned all six. However, he denied that the material was inherently defamatory of the six or that it was published wrongfully.
His primary defence in court was that the letter merely highlighted serious allegations of misconduct. And they were brought forward by a whistle-blower, concerning a conflict of interest.
“These allegations implicated Moleketi, who, while serving as both Deputy Minister and chairperson of the PIC, allegedly violated s 96 of the Constitution by approving transactions that benefited the companies that he held positions as director and chairperson in,” he told the court.
The scheme was alleged to involve the unlawful depletion of billions of rands from the PIC. Subsequently, this led to the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry under Justice Mpati (the PIC Commission of Inquiry).
State capture
Holomisa argued that the flow of funds to the entities provided sufficient evidence of a breach of the Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999 and the Constitution. It warranted an investigation. He further stated that this instance exemplified state capture and should be examined alongside other similar allegations.
“Given our role as a political party and a Member of Parliament, we had a duty to call on the president to initiate an investigation. Any person who is involved in allegations of corruption is, metaphorically speaking, a hyena,” he added.
Acting Judge of Appeal Leonie Windell said interlocutory orders are not appealable.
He further said the summons were issued more than seven years ago. And it is in the interest of justice that the matter proceeds to trial.
“The appeal is struck from the roll with costs. Such costs are to include the costs of the application for leave to appeal.”
