Last Tuesday, in a ground-breaking judgment, the deputy judge president of the Western Cape High Court, Patricia Goliath, recognised that defendants may in principle raise a “Slapp” defence in defamation cases.
Slapp stands for “strategic litigation against public participation”. It refers to meritless or exaggerated lawsuits intended to intimidate civil society advocates, human rights defenders, journalists, academics, individuals and organisations acting in the public interest.
The case in question has its origin on both SA’s west coast and the Wild Coast. For almost a decade, there has been public concern about the mining activities of the Australian mining company Mineral Commodities Limited (MRC) and its various South African companies. These companies mine beaches on the unspoilt west coast for heavy minerals.
These large-scale, extractive mining operation shave gone unchallenged along the west coast primarily because the area is sparsely inhabited, and many communities are underdeveloped and exist in poor socioeconomic circumstances.
However, on the Wild Coast, where MRC and local counterparts have for years attempted to mine a 22km stretch of pristine beach land, the public spotlight of debates, community activism and legal challenges has been a bulwark against what activists see as the permanent destruction of fauna and flora for the short-term and private benefits of titanium mining.
Among the voices that have participated in the public discourse about the impact of mining on the environment, and specifically these companies’ mining operations, are those of three environmental attorneys and three activists. They have criticised the companies in books, radio interviews and, in the case of two of the attorneys, in a lecture at the Summer School of the University of Cape Town.
The response of the companies was to bring defamation actions against the six, claiming that their corporate reputation and the reputation of some of their directors had been damaged to the tune of over R14m. The attorneys and activists pleaded a Slapp defence — uncharted territory in our law.
They argued that the mining companies’ conduct in bringing these cases was an abuse of process, or the use of court processes to achieve an improper end and cause them financial or other prejudice in order to silence them. This, they argued, violated the right to freedom of expression
They also alleged that the companies’ cases were brought for the ulterior purpose of intimidating and silencing the defendants as well as members of civil society, the public and the media.
In other words, the allegation was that the defamation cases had been brought to chill criticism by the companies: they were Slapps.
The mining companies objected, saying the law did not recognise a Slapp defence. So, the case was also about whether such a defence was valid in ourlaw (not — yet — whether it applied on the merits of the case, which is for another day).
Goliath observed that Slapp cases are usually disguised as ordinary civil claims, often defamation claims, designed to discourage others from speaking on issues of public importance. Slapps exploit the inequality of finances and human resources available to large corporations as compared to the targets.
For almost a decade, there has been public concern about the mining activities of the Australian mining company Mineral Commodities Limited (MRC) and its various South African companies. These companies mine beaches on the unspoilt west coast for heavy minerals
“Slapps are designed to turn the justice system into a weapon to intimidate people who are exercising their constitutional rights; restrain public interest in advocacy and activism; and convert matters of public interest into technical private law disputes,” said the court.
The court described Slapps as classic David v Goliath scenarios, where a well-resourced company embarks on litigation against individuals, local community groups, activists or nonprofit organisations advancing a social interest of some significance, usually without any personal profit or commercial advantage.
Exorbitant damages claims are part of the strategy, said Goliath, “chilling public participation and sending a clear message to activists that there are unaffordable financial risks attached to public participation ”.
And Slapps do not need to be successful in court to have their intended effect; all lawyers know how to play the long litigation game, and the sheer emotional and financial drain that this causes may cause defendants to capitulate.
Goliath gave the example of the McLibel case: reportedly the longest case in British history, in which , in 1990, McDonald’s sued activists for allegedly libelling it in the leaflet “What’s Wrong with McDonald’s?”. The leaflet laid a number of sins at Mc Donald ’s door: bad working conditions, exploitation of children, deforestation and unhealthy food. As McLibel made its way through the courts, over several years, it raised philosophical and policy questions about ways of eating, of treating the planet, of dealing with people, animals and the environment.
It was seen as a Slapp, said Goliath, because the aim of McDonald’s was to silence its critics with a heavy-handed damages claim it could never expect to recover.
Goliath then turned to the facts before her. The mining companies “are claiming inexplicably exorbitant amounts for damages, which the defendants can ill afford. They instituted these proceedings fully aware of the fact that there is no realistic prospect of recovering the damages they seek. This action will without a doubt place an economic burden on the defendants.”
This was exacerbated by the fact that “public participation is a key component in environmental activism and the chilling effect of a Slapp can be detrimental to the enforcement of environmental rights and land use decisions”. She concluded that the case had the classic features of a Slapp case —the DNA matched.
Thus the mining companies’ technical objection to the defence being raised was dismissed — the defendants can now argue that the Slapp defence applies on the merits at the next stage of the case.
The court’s recognition that there is a way our law can guard against Slapps is of profound importance in our democracy. And it does not only apply to corporations — powerful politicians and public figures often abuse the law of defamation to chill freedom of expression. A good example is the litigation spree embarked upon by our former president, Jacob Zuma, who in the space of four years launched 15 defamation cases, claiming overR50m, against newspapers (including the Sunday Times), cartoonists, columnists and op-ed writers— all of whom had dared to criticise his conduct.
The message of the case for those who would want to bring a Slapp is clear — you Slapp us and the law will slap you back.
• Geldenhuys and Milo are partners at Webber Wentzel, which acted for the six defendants in the case
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.