State funds ex-minister’s court battle

Though no longer in office, former housing minister Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele used public funds to fight her appeal court battle. Her case, decided by the Supreme Court of Appeals this week, was fought by the state attorneys’ office and may have cost R500 000, legal experts say.

Her legal costs could be even higher because the court awarded costs to the Mail & Guardian.

This will not benefit the paper, as Mthembi-Mahanyele is taking the legal battle to the Constitutional Court. That tussle could cost as much as the appeal.

Mthembi-Mahanyele said that the source of funding was ‘not the issue”. ‘I’m a full citizen of this country and entitled to rights like everybody else. I cannot be abused because of my position.”

She said the fact that two of the five judges dissented justified her recourse to the Constitutional Court.

State attorneys said she was entitled to legal representation in terms of the State Attorneys Act because the disputed report was published while she was minister and acting within the scope of her government duties.

Head of Johannesburg state attorneys KJ Lekabe would not comment on whether the state would fund Mthembi-Mahanyele’s application to the Constitutional Court.

However, the Democratic Alliance has said it would table a motion in Parliament asking the government to disclose whether it was paying the minister’s legal fees.

The African National Congress said it could not comment until Mthembi-Mahanyele had exhausted all legal avenues.

The appeal court overturned the Johannesburg High Court ruling that Cabinet ministers had no locus standi to sue in respect of their government work. But, in a victory for media freedom, Judge Carol Lewis in the main judgement referred to a special defamation defence relating to media articles about politicians. She held that in such cases even false information could be published ‘provided that publication is reasonable” in the circumstances.

‘Freedom of expression in political discourse is necessary to hold members of government accountable to the public,” the court said.

‘Some latitude must be allowed in order to allow robust and frank comment.”