Now it’s the ‘Kaiser’ of UKZN

Former Transkei bantustan strongman Kaiser Matanzima made a rare appearance in the Grahamstown Magistrate’s Court this month, where he provoked a sharp exchange about authoritarianism, gagging orders and freedom of speech.

Matanzima’s appearance four years after his death was, of course, on paper, as part of a defamation suit brought by University of KwaZulu-Natal communications chief Dasarath Chetty. In his sights was Jimi Adesina, Rhodes university sociology professor.

The court clash originated in an email notice his office sent to ‘the university community” on February 3 last year, when UKZN staff were poised to strike. It said: ‘Public affairs and corporate communications would like to request that all staff who receive any media query related to the impending industrial action refer these calls to [this office].”

All four staff unions publicly denounced Chetty’s message as ‘tantamount to a gagging order”. Adesina sent him an open letter arguing that the notice from his office ‘represents a grave and present danger to the essence of a university as an intellectual project and community – its very raison d’être”.

Addressing Chetty as a fellow sociologist, Adesina wrote that ‘we bear a unique responsibility to discern, ahead of time, the early stirrings of a virulent dictatorship —”

Adesina reminded Chetty that he (Chetty) was a past president of the South African Sociological Association, a position Adesina himself now holds.

Noting how ‘the root of casual authoritarianism seems to be surviving,” he quoted from a banning order that Matan- zima issued on December 7 1976 against Clarence Makwetu, subsequently president of the Pan Africanist Congress.

The banning order is ‘all nice and orderly, isn’t it?” Adesina asked, pointing to language such as ‘proceed” and ‘take up residence”.

‘Matanzima could argue that he never used the word ‘ban’ or ‘restriction’, as I suspect you would argue that your email to the staff of UKZN never used the word ‘gag’ or said UKZN staff could face disciplinary action if they flout your instruction — But Matanzima fooled no one, neither will you!”

In papers before the court, Chetty said he found Adesina’s email ‘offensive and insulting”, that he issued a notice to staff explaining that his original notice was not a gagging order, and that his attorneys sent two letters to Adesina demanding an apology, which was not forthcoming.

Chetty claimed it was defamatory to accuse him of conduct comparable with that of the apartheid regime and bantustan leaders, of being the agent of a grave threat to the sociological community, and of attempting to gag UKZN staff. For these and other accusations, Adesina should pay him R100 000, he demanded.

Grahamstown magistrate IM Ristow partly agreed with Chetty last week, saying in his judgement that Adesina’s open letter was ‘prima facie defamatory”. But the court also found that the letter did not ‘show malice” and that its ‘comments were — about matters of public interest”. It dismissed Chetty’s claim with costs.

Matanzima may have yet another day in court, however. Chetty’s lawyers told the Mail & Guardian that he believes ‘there are good prospects that another court — will come to a different conclusion” and that his client may appeal.

They also said that ‘as the events giving rise to the defamatory email arose out of the conduct of Professor Chetty’s duties on behalf of the university, the institution of the action was supported by the university executive”. Chetty declined to specify whether this support included paying his legal costs.

Adesina remains defiant, telling the M&G that ‘the threats to universities and academic freedom are not just external, they’re internal, in the way those in authority deploy their power instead of their intellects.”