Vermaas v Pelser and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Dowling J
• Judgment Date: 24 August 1950
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division
• Hearing Date: 22 August 1950
• Citation: 1951 (1) SA 752 (T)

Dowling, J.:

In connection with this matter it has been brought to my A notice that certain newspapers, Die Vaderland and Die Transvaler, published on the 18th and the 22nd August respectively, and before this matter came before the Court, a summary of the petition, and I have been asked to comment on this procedure. The first-mentioned publication, in B Die Vaderland of the 18th August, made no mention of the answering affidavit of the three respondents which, of course, had not then been filed. The second publication, by the Transvaler, gave a summary of the respondents' affidavit which had at that date been filed. At that time there was no replying affidavit filed from the side of the applicant; C indeed, such an affidavit was only filed during the actual hearing of the application. Certain other newspapers rather more discreetly published the fact that a petition was pending but did not give the particulars of the petition. It was, of course, undesirable that there should be premature publication of facts contained in a petition and D filed with the Registrar of the Court. It is proper that there should be publication only when the matter is dealt within a Court. It may be mentioned that it is only in respect of substantially accurate reports of judicial proceedings in open Court that a newspaper may lay claim to privilege in respect of the publication of any matter of a defamatory E character. From this point of view it is against the interests of the newspapers themselves prematurely to publish reports of matter found in the office of the Registrar of the Court. There is this further objection that there is always a possibility that a summons or an application which contains defamatory or derogatory allegations may be F withdrawn before it comes to Court on the ground, inter alia, that the allegations are found to be wholly unfounded. In a case of that kind the publicity which has been given to unfounded defamatory statements would cause great hardship and prejudice to the persons against whom they were G made. In certain circumstances premature publication of matter of this kind may amount to a contempt of Court and be an obstruction to the proper administration of justice. It has, however, not been suggested that the publication in this case constitutes any contempt of the Court and I do not propose to pursue the matter any further.

H Coming now to the application itself, I could have wished to have had further time to consider the full implications of the view to which I have come, but in view of the urgency of the matter it seems to me desirable that I should give my judgment without delay.

The applicant in this matter is a candidate for the United Party for election at a pending by-election as a member of the Provincial

Dowling J

Council of the Transvaal for the constituency of Klerksdorp. He seeks an interdict restraining the respondents from issuing further copies of a certain handbill and directing the respondents to retrieve all copies of A the handbill which have already been issued by them, and such other relief as the Court may think fit to grant. Under the prayer for other relief Mr. Coaker, who appeared for the applicant, asked for an order for the destruction of the handbills still in existence. The first respondent is Mr. P. C. Pelser, an attorney of Klerksdorp and the B candidate for the Herenigde Nasionale Party in the pending by-election; the second respondent is Mr. W. G. Smit, also of Klerksdorp, the election agent of the first respondent, and the third respondent is Mr. Johannes de Klerk, the Transvaal organising secretary of the Herenigde Nasionale Party. A specimen of the handbill, of which C complaint is made, is annexed to the petition. The respondents in a joint affidavit admit that the handbill is being distributed ('versprei word') in the Klerksdorp constituency and they virtually accept responsibility for its publication. The handbill, as is usual in D election contests, praises the achievements of the party in power and points out alleged demerits in the party in opposition.

The opening page of the handbill, printed in bold type, runs.

''Dit was sonder twyfel die belangrikste en vrugbaarste sitting wat daar in jare was,' het die Eerste Minister, dr. D. F. Malan, na afloop van die 1950. Volksraadsitting verklaar. Die Apartheidsbeleid van die Nasionale Party, ten gunste waarvan die volk op 26 Mei 1948 uitspraak E gegee het en op 9 Maart 1949 bekragtig het, word uitgevoer. Die wet op bevolkingsregistrasie, die ontugwet, die wet op gemengde huwelike, die wet op groepsgebiede en die wet op onderdrukking van die kommunisme, e.a. wat vaste fondamente lê en dit teen alle moontlike storms beskerm, staan vandag daar as blywende monumente van die Nasionale Party.'

F On pages 2 and 3 of this handbill under separate headings 1 to 5 each of the five Acts of Parliament, of which mention is made on page 1, are individually praised and the framer or framers of the handbill purport to set out what attitude was taken up by the United Party and the names of members of the United Party in relation to the passing of these G measures. As an illustration I will read from para. 2 which deals with the

'Wet op Gemengde Huwelike: Hoewel die openbare mening in Suid-Afrika teen gemengde huwelike is en veld. Smuts self erken het dat dit 'n euwel is, het die opposisie die wet eenparig beveg saam net Kommunis Sam Kahn wat gemengde huwelike as niks verkeerds beskou nie'.

H A reference to Hansard is given in support of what is there said. Under para. 3, dealing with the 'Ontugwet' and headed 'Verenigde Party laat maar loop-beleid' there is under that heading printed:

'Die Verenigde Party het weer hul ou beleid van 'Let things develop' gevolg. Dr. Colin Steyn het in die Volksraad teen die wetgewing gepraat en voorgestel dat 'die Raad weier om die Ontugwetsontwerp goed te keur omdat hy van mening is dat die euwel nie by wyse van wetgewing doeltreffend bestry kan word nie.'

A reference is here also given to Hansard.

Dowling J

Para. 5 of this handbill is the one of which complaint has particularly been made. That deals with the Act for the Suppression of Communism and under the heading 'Kommunisme se dae getel' appears in bold type:

A 'Die Kommunisme bedreig die wêreld. Dit bedreig ook Suid-Afrika. Sy ideaal hier is 'n swart republiek. Suid-Afrika is sat en moeg van die Kommunistiese opstokery in die land. Die aanhitsing van naturelle wat tot die onlangse onluste op Meidag gelei het, het selfs die twyfelaar se oë oopgemaak.'

Then in bold type again:

'Ons wil geen Bolsjewistiese agitasies in Suid-Afrika hê nie. Daarom het die Nasionale Regering toegeslaan op die Kommunisme in B Suid-Afrika. Kommunistiese organisasies, vergaderings en tydskrifte is in die ban gedoen. Oortreders is strafbaar met 10 jaar tronkstraf. Lede van die Kommunistiese Party word verbied om in die Volksraad en Provinsiale Rade te sit. Diegene wat reeds daar is moet daaruit. Persone wat nie SA burgers is nie en hul skuldig maak aan gedrag wat deur die Wet verbied word, of as hy. Kommunis is, mag C gedeporteer word of aangehou word as verbode immigrant. Saam met Kommunis Sam Kahn het die Verenigde Party hierdie wetgewing bitterlik en enduit beveg. Saam met die Kommunis wil die Verenigde Party die wetgewing herroep indien hy ooit weer aan bewind kom.'

On the last page of this handbill appear the following statements:

'Help u die Verenigde Party dan help u die Kommuniste. Wil u 'n swart D Kommunistiese Republiek in Suid-Afrika hê? Natuurlik nie! Maar dan is u plig teenoor uself en teenoor u kinders baie duidelik: Stem Nasionaal. Die Verenigde Party sê hulle gaan hierdie 5 Wette almal herroep indien hulle aan bewind kom. Wil u dit hê...