Malema not letting go of R1m defamation lawsuit against ex-EFF MP

EFF leader Julius Malema. Picture: Oupa Mokoena/African News Agency (ANA)

EFF leader Julius Malema. Picture: Oupa Mokoena/African News Agency (ANA)

Published Feb 5, 2021

Share

Johannesburg - EFF leader Julius Malema is not letting go of the R1million defamation lawsuit against his party’s former MP who accused him of living large on party funds and being involved in the VBS “cash heist”.

Thembinkosi Rawula, who published his scathing attack on Facebook, represented himself at the Port Elizabeth High Court and defeated Malema in November 2019.

But the bout will enter a second round later this month, when the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) hears Malema’s bid to set aside the high court ruling that favoured Rawula.

Malema wanted Rawula to apologise and pay him R1m for the comments he made seemingly out of disgruntlement for not being returned to Parliament in 2019. Rawula had lashed out: “You use the EFF money in whatever way you deemed fit without consulting any of us.”

He further alleged that VBS money was paid into a R5.2m property Malema occupied.

Malema has bolstered his legal team by roping in Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC. His appeal application will challenge what he believes to be errors by High Court Acting Judge Nicholas Mullins in finding against him.

The judge found that the fatal flaw in Malema’s application was that it sought a final interdict and damages, which would preclude Rawula from bringing further evidence in support of his version of events. Rawula had submitted that he could prove the truth of statements he made if given access to the EFF’s financial and other records.

“Taking everything into account, I am of the view that bringing a defamation claim by way of application for a final interdict and damages was misguided and bad in law,” Judge Mullins said.

Malema’s heads of argument filed at the SCA question the finding that an application for an interim interdict was the better remedy.

The papers say the judge’s concern at Rawula’s inability to lead evidence holds no water because Malema presented a strong case that he had been defamed, say the papers.

“That concern is without merit … An applicant should not be punished for having a good case,” Malema’s papers read.

@BonganiNkosi87

The Star