Publications
Partners
Trevor Manuel says the Economic Freedom Fighters's appeal of a defamation suit he won in May against the party has no merit and that the damages awarded by the court were appropriate.
The statements are contained in an answering affidavit filed by Manuel to the Supreme Court of Appeal in response to the EFF application which seeks to overturn the High Court ruling, which ordered it to apologise to Manuel, remove the statement from all of its platforms and pay R500 000 in damages.
The former Finance Minister Trevor Manuel hauled the EFF to court in May over the remarks the party made about his involvement in a selection panel that conducted interviews for the appointment of a new SARS commissioner.
The party took issue with the appointment of Edward Kieswetter, whom they alleged was Manuel’s close business associate and friend. They further stated the process lacked transparency and was conducted in a secret manner.
They described Manuel’s involvement in Kieswetter’s selection process as "nepotistic" and "corrupt" prompting him to launch a defamation case against the party. The court found that the statements were "unlawful".
Manuel was the head of the selection panel, appointed by Finance Minister Tito Mboweni, tasked with interviewing candidates for the top job in the revenue service. The panel made recommendations but did not make the final decision. In his court papers, Manuel had previously said that while he had not been asked to do so, he had nonetheless recused himself from Kieswetter's interview.
In his statement, Manuel said “a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence would understand the statement to mean that I am corrupt, nepotistic and deliberately conducted a secret appointment process to disguise my familial relationship with Mr Kieswetter”.
He said "the applicant's defences are without merit" and the remarks against him "plainly defamatory". The EFF are opposing the R500 000 in general damages awarded to Manuel, describing the amount as “disproportionately high”.
Damages appropriate
In his response, Manuel argues that “the damages award was entirely appropriate” while the EFF stands by its statements and insist that the ruling undermines the right to freedom of expression.
"It is unclear whether the applicants contend that the statement is true in material respects, or whether they contend that 'at the time they believed they were publishing the truth in the public interest'".
Manuel wants the court to dismiss the case with costs. The party directly petitioned the Appeals Court to hear the case after it was denied leave to appeal by the High Court.
