The Mbombela High Court will host a political showdown next year between former Mpumalanga education MEC Landulile “Cathy” Dlamini and EFF provincial leader Collen Sedibe, which he can ill afford to lose.
The Mpumalanga ANC heavyweight has filed a defamation lawsuit against her outspoken opponent for comments the latter posted to social media.
She is claiming R20-million from Sedibe for publishing false and damaging statements about her on his personal Facebook and X accounts.
She alleged that in a series of online posts, Sedibe accused her of taking bribes, interfering in tender awards and orchestrating corrupt dealings in the department she led. He even claimed that she had pocketed millions from service providers.
Dlamini argues that the posts were personal attacks disguised as political commentary, saying they stripped her of dignity and humiliated her before the public.
The courtroom drama will test the fragile balance between two constitutional rights the right to freedom of expression and the right to dignity. It will also examine whether politicians using personal social media pages can claim political protection when making disparaging comments about their rivals.
Dlamini is seeking a permanent interdict prohibiting Sedibe from publishing or broadcasting any further defamatory statements about her on social media, radio, or any public platform.
She also wants the court to order him to remove all existing posts and issue a
formal apology within five days of judgment.
Sedibe, in his answering affidavit, maintains that his online posts were acts of political duty, not defamation. He argues that as an opposition leader, he is constitutionally obliged to expose corruption and speak truth to power.
He says the statements were made in good faith, were true and served the public interest.
“I submit, and I am further advised, that the statements constituted fair comment, were true and were in the public interest,” wrote Sedibe.
According to Sedibe, his campaign against Dlamini’s alleged misconduct led to investigations into the irregular purchase of R2-million laptops in the education department, which resulted in the suspension of HOD Lucy Moyane and Dlamini’s removal.
“I am advised that the applicant needs to place tangible facts before the court that the
statements complained of were unlawful. As alluded to herein, the statements were made in furtherance of the public interest.
There was ample justification for publishing the same,” he said.
“There can hardly be any reasonable person of reasonable intelligence who cannot appreciate that the rights of the applicant cannot outweigh the interest of the public to have accountable governance.”
He insists that public interest was also important in this case.
“The same statements were made in the public interest as opposed to being made because they might be interesting to the public. The public interest lies in exposing and rooting out
corruption in public administration, as we know that corruption serves to enrich the few at the expense of the multitudes,” he adds.
In her replying affidavit, Dlamini argues that Sedibe made the comments on his private accounts, not on official EFF platforms, and therefore cannot hide behind the argument that he was acting in his political capacity.
“Section 16 of the Constitution protects freedom of expression,” she argues, “but it does not extend to the publication of defamatory falsehoods.”
Dlamini accused Sedibe of spreading lies based on an unnamed “whistleblower” whose “reckless fabrications [are] designed to destroy my reputation”.
Dlamini accused Sedibe of refusing to retract or apologize, despite receiving letters of demand from her attorneys.
“Even after I launched this application,” she noted, “the respondent still proceeded to post defamatory and false statements about me on social media.”
