 Malema loses gagging bid Julius Malema lost a last-minute high court bid to prevent City Press newspaper from publishing damaging information about his financial affairs, including "a secret slush fund". Malema sought to obtain an urgent interdict against the newspaper after receiving a set of detailed questions, including whether he received cash from contractors, individuals and politicians into a family trust in exchange for securing them deals, protecting them "politically" or "pushing their political agendas". In addition, the ANC Youth League leader refuted claims that he charged a fee of at least 45% of the total profit made from tenders that he secured. Judge Colin Lamont dismissed the application at the High Court in Johannesburg with costs, finding that the questions posed by City Press to Malema were sufficiently clear and detailed. In addition, they would have been easy for Malema to answer, he said. Malema, who was in Limpopo for a rally, could not be reached for comment, but youth league spokesman Floyd Shivambu said: "We are not going to comment. We are still going to look at the judgment." City Press assistant editor Adriaan Basson said: "We are very happy. We think it is a great victory for freedom of speech." He said Malema owed the nation an explanation. "We gave Mr Malema ample time to respond to the allegations. He chose not to answer our questions and flatly denied all the allegations. He then went to court to try and gag us from publishing the story." In an affidavit, Malema said the paper had asked him questions, including:
According to the court papers, the trust was registered in May 2008 and Malema has never publicly declared it. The paper noted that the trust bought a farm for R900000 in June last year. "Did the trust buy the farm cash, as no bond is registered on the property?" City Press asked him. Malema said the information was false and "defamatory", and, in papers, said publication would injure his reputation and "lower me in the estimation of right-thinking members of society". Malema said he believed he had a prima facie right and that he would suffer irreparable harm unless he obtained the interdict. "I must hasten to emphasise that is not my intention to attack the constitutionally entrenched media freedom. I am not in any way opposing factual, balanced, objective, fair and reasonable reporting. I strongly oppose dishonest and sensational reporting," Malema said in his affidavit. "I do not for once dispute the fact that I am a public figure. I am prepared to answer every question if it is in the interest of the public and not what, in the opinion of the respondents, might interest the public," he added. City Press editor Ferial Haffajee said: "It is a very important judgment to ensure that no person or institution can exercise pre-publication censorship against the media. The judge has affirmed that probing of Mr Malema's financial affairs or lifestyle is in the public interest." She had also said, in an answering affidavit, that publication of the allegations, and the fact that these would be in the public domain, may also provide a measure of protection for sources, as it had become clear that Malema was probing for information about the identity of the sources relied on in the story. -- You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] . |
