Martin Welz has found out who his friends are, writes Rehana Rossouw
NOSEWEEK editor Martin Welz was lauded by media institutions this week after successfully defending himself against a defamation action in the Cape Town Supreme Court.
But the marathon six-month trial has left Welz disillusioned with the media industry, which he says failed to support him.
Last Friday, Judge JH Conradie ruled that American businessman Dr Robert Hall had sued Noseweek and the Cape Argus to “sustain a colossal fraud”. He dismissed Hall’s R1,6- million defamation claim against the two newspapers with costs.
Hall told the Mail & Guardian this week that he intended appealing Judge Conradie’s ruling.
South African Union of Journalists (SAUJ) president Sam Sole said the trial was a clear example of what was wrong with South African libel law: “A rich crook was able to use hundreds of thousands of rand to put up the best possible legal shield to the truth, in the process crippling one of South Africa’s most courageous independent publications.
“That he failed was only due to the fact that Martin Welz is a truly exceptional journalist and was able to meet the burden of proof demanded by the courts – something many journalists, given the circumstances of their craft, would often struggle to do.”
Sole said the courts take their cue from a judgment in the Appellate Division against the Mail & Guardian and Vrye Weekblad in 1993, where it was assumed journalists were guilty rather than innocent.
General Lothar Neethling, former head of the police forensics laboratory, had sued the two newspapers for libel after they reported allegations by former hit-squad policeman Dirk Coetzee that Neethling had supplied poison to kill anti-apartheid activists.
The newspapers successfully defended themselves, but the Appellate Division overturned the judgment on the grounds that Neethling was more believable and that newspaper readers had no legitimate interest in Coetzee’s allegations.
“If any article is prima facie defamatory, it is from that point on assumed to be malicious, defamatory and untrue. It is then up to the publication to prove otherwise,” Sole said.
The Freedom of Expression Institute’s Media Defence Fund, which contributed significantly to Welz’s legal costs, said the case had been a challenge to press freedom.
The fund’s co-ordinator, Alex Kuhn, said people like Hall take independent newspapers to court in an attempt to close them down. “We contributed R110 000 towards Noseweek’s legal costs and raised funds for additional money to cover the remainder. Without us, Welz would not have been able to have a legal defence.
“We’re very pleased he won the case and that it didn’t reverse any rulings against the media.”
Welz said while he was pleased to have won, the trial had been a “major trauma” for him, both professionally and personally. “I know this is a clich,, but it is at times like this that you find out who your friends are,” he said. “The SAUJ gave me tremendous moral support.
“My life was saved by the Freedom of Expression Institute and its concerned staff. It was amazing how little interest major publications take in press freedom. I pleaded with them for help and received no response whatsoever. The absence of support from the industry was shocking, and has left me with few illusions.”