The Citizen v McBride 2011 4 SA 191 (CC) : recent case law

• Author: W. De Klerk
• Pages: 447-455
• Published date: 01 January 2011
• DOI: 10.10520/EJC135323
• Date: 01 January 2011

The Citizen v McBride

2011 4 SA 191 (CC)

Defamation – the defence of “fair” comment and media defendants

1 Background and Context

Over a period of some seven weeks in 2003, the Citizen newspaper

published a series of articles and editorials dealing with the candidacy of

Robert McBride as chief of the Ekurhuleni metro police. Two initial

articles, largely factual in nature, informed readers of McBride’s

candidacy for the post as chief of police. It related McBride’s infamous

conviction of murder for the 1986 bombing of the

Why Not Restaurant

and

Magoo’s Bar

on the Durban beachfront in which three women were

killed and sixty-nine other people injured. It also recounted McBride’s

1998 arrest and detention in Mozambique on suspicion of gun-running.

The initial articles mentioned that McBride was sentenced to death for

the 1986 bombing, that the sentence was later commuted and that he

was ultimately granted amnesty by the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission (parr 8 – 9).

The initial articles were followed by a range of editorials and articles,

expressing strong views on McBride and his suitability for the post of

chief of police. The subsequent articles included statements to the effect

that McBride is “blatantly unsuited” to the post; that he is a ”murderer”

and “criminal” for having committed “cold-blooded multiple murders”;

that he engaged in a “dubious flirtation with alleged gun-dealers in

Mozambique”; that he “still thinks he did a great thing as a ‘soldier’

blowing up a civilian bar”; that he is “not contrite”, a “wicked coward

who obstructed the road to democracy”; and that his act was one of

“human scum”. (parr 10 – 17). Importantly, these later articles made no

mention at all of McBride’s amnesty.