Court turns down R10m defamation claim against Phosa

FORMER ANC treasurer-general Mathews Phosa has been vindicated by the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, which turned down Premier of Mpumalanga David Mabuza’s R10 million defamation claim against him.

Mabuza claimed Phosa was the author of a spy report which implicated the premier as being an apartheid era spy. Judge Bill Prinsloo made it clear Phosa was a credible witness and found he was not the author of the spy report.

The judge found Phosa’s version of how he obtained the report was to be believed. “I considered him (Phosa) to be a credible and impressive witness,” the judge said.

He, however, frowned upon the conduct of Mabuza, who did not bother to testify in the defamation claim he’d lodged against Phosa. He instead chose to call Phosa’s former butler, Jan Venter, as his main witness.

The court found Venter was not only an appalling witness, but was also a self-confessed liar. The judge questioned the reason for large amounts of cash delivered by Mabuza’s lawyer to Venter, soon after the former butler had agreed, following a meeting with Mabuza, to make a statement that he’d witnessed Phosa drafting the spy report.

“It is difficult to understand why the plaintiff ( Mabuza) elected not to testify when his testimony may have been of assistance to this court,” the judge said. He also questioned why the Mabuza camp never forwarded any explanations for the cash delivered to Venter.

The court found that instead of Mabuza having been defamed, it was actually Phosa’s name which had been tainted by the unjustified allegations against him.

To show his displeasure in this regard, the judge issued a punitive costs order against Mabuza.

Mabuza claimed Phosa was the author of a report in which the premier was made out to be an apartheid spy. It also contained claims that Mabuza was involved in the murder of activist Portia Shabangu, who was murdered in the 1980s by the controversial then- head of the police farm Vlakplaas, Eugene de Kock.

Venter, the sole witness on whom Mabuza relied for his claims against Phosa, earlier testified that he witnessed Phosa and a business associate “fabricating” the spy report at Phosa’s White River home in 2014. He said although he only heard snippets of the conversation, he heard Mabuza’s name mentioned “a couple of times” and that Phosa said “he will draft the report and send it to Luthuli House”.

Venter meanwhile had left Phosa’s employment after a disagreement and their relationship had soured, as Phosa instituted criminal charges against the butler.

Venter during this time on various occasions tried to contact Mabuza “for help” and to tell him he had “information about Phosa”, but was ignored.

The spy report was meanwhile in November 2014 leaked to the media. Mabuza, three days later, called to meet Venter. It was after this meeting that Venter stated he had witnessed Phosa drafting the spy report.

It was also during this time that “substantial amounts of cash” was delivered to him.

The judge remarked: “I was left with a strong impression that the money was coming from the plaintiff ( Mabuza) himself.”

Venter meanwhile reconciled with Phosa and said his claims that the latter was responsible for the report had been false. But Venter for a third time changed sides and by the time the case came before court, he was back in the Mabuza camp.

Mathews Phosa