Mabuza unfazed by court upset

Who is this DD in report, asks Phosa

Mpumalanga premier David Mabuza is unperturbed by losing the defamation lawsuit against rival Mathews Phosa, saying the court hearing vindicated him against claims he was an apartheid spy.

He had dragged Phosa to court over a report purportedly identifying him as a spy that infiltrated the ANC in 1985 and reported movements of leaders and members to police.

Mabuza, argued Phosa, an ANC stalwart now running to become the party’s president, concocted the report and disseminated it in 2014 in a bid to smear him.

He wanted the North Gauteng High Court to order Phosa to pay him R10-million and tender an apology.

Phosa argued the report was delivered to his house by unknown people and he scanned and emailed it to ANC deputy secretary general Jessie Duarte.

Judge Bill Prinsloo dismissed Mabuza’s application and ordered him to pay Phosa’s legal costs.

Prinsloo said Mabuza failed to prove that Phosa authored the document. “Quite apart from the fact that there is no credible evidence to persuade me that the defendant created the Spy Report, I am also of the view, and I find it is inherently improbable … that he could have done so.

“Moreover, I find nothing improbable about the manner in which, on his evidence, he came into possession of the document,” Prinsloo said.

Mabuza’s spokesman, Zibonele Mncwango, told Sowetan yesterday the premier would study the report and decide his next step.

“He has noted the decision of the high court. But he feels vindicated that up until today there’s no owner of that document,” said Mncwango.

Before suing Phosa, Mabuza had threatened to ask President Jacob Zuma to establish a judicial inquiry that would probe claims that he was an apartheid agent.

Prinsloo commented in his judgment that it was strange that no evidence was delivered before him about this threat.

Phosa told Sowetan Mabuza is “trying to obfuscate issues” because the court application was not about finding the author and origin of the spy report. “It was about whether or not I wrote the report,” he said.

He added that the ruling had “serious implications” for Mabuza. “We need to know who is this DD the document is talking about.”