Zillie v Johnson and Another

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Coetzee J
• Judgment Date: 25 August 1983
• Court: Witwatersrand Local Division

Coetzee J:

The most memorable incident during the 1981 general election was the notorious pensioners' R20 monthly diet controversy in which the then Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions, Dr L A P A Munnik ("the Minister") was involved. At E the time, the plaintiff was the political correspondent of the Rand Daily Mail ("RDM"). She was, in the English language press, the first reporter of this story. Her report set in train a series of public statements, disclaimers and comment which eventually led to her present claim for defamation.

The publication of at least one of the Minister's statements in F the course of the running battle which ensued between him and the Opposition press was defamatory of her. This particular statement was widely published in South Africa by all the daily newspapers including her own, but the plaintiff selected The Citizen, of which the first defendant is the editor and the second defendant the publisher, as the only target for a claim G for defamation. To any regular reader of the RDM of reasonably long standing this is not strange.

The offending article, which was published on Monday, 27 April 1981, is headed (in quotation marks) "Twisted, malicious reporting" and the body of the report reads as follows:

"Cape Town - The Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions, H Dr L A P A Munnik, has sent a telegram to the chairman of the Steyn commission, requesting an early opportunity to give evidence on 'twisted and malicious reporting and deductions about the subsistence of population groups'.

He was reacting to press criticism after a statement he allegedly made last week that R20 was enough to provide an elderly person with a balanced diet for a month.

Dr Munnik said in his telegram yesterday that last Thursday he had referred to the 'absolute minimum subsistence requirements, medically speaking, with regard to diet and expenses connected with it. I never alleged or suggested

Coetzee J

that the Government applied this norm or wanted to do so. My remarks were only to illustrate the measure in which the State took the interests of the needy to heart and supported them.'

Certain newspapers had said it was expected of pensioners to exist on R20 a month, he told Mr Justice M T Steyn in the telegram.

A 'This is a flagrant and total distortion of the facts and a malicious misrepresentation of my intentions, in spite of my unqualified stand to the reporters during the press conference that such a deduction should not be made from my remarks,' the Minister said.

In the telegram Dr Munnik said: 'It is a condition for the stability of a dispensation by the State that correct B reflections of facts as well as logically justifiable deductions from these will be conveyed through the media. During election times it is to be expected that political parties and their supporting newspapers will perhaps apply this general rule less strictly. However, in the case in question a drastic overstepping of the mark has taken place which goes beyond all reasonable norms.' - Sapa."

The sting of the libel lies in the words which I have italicised. There is no identification in this report of the C "certain" newspapers, and the plaintiff was put to the proof of her allegation that the article referred to her. A further defence, based on absence of unlawfulness, was raised in defendants' amended plea as follows:

"5.

Ad para 6 (a) and (b):

The defendants admit the publication of the article D complained of but deny that such publication was unlawful and plead that the said article was published pursuant to a duty on the part of the defendants to inform the readers of The Citizen newspaper as members of the general public of the contents of the said telegram and a corresponding right on the part of the readers of The Citizen as members of the general E public to receive the information contained in the said telegram.

(b) A.

Details of the facts and circumstances surrounding and leading to the publication of the contents of the said telegram are as follows:

(i)

A general election had been called F for 30 April 1981.

(ii)

At the time the Minister of Health, Pensions and Welfare was one Dr L A P A Munnik.

(iii)

Two of the crucial issues in the election campaign were food prices and the plight of pensioners.

(iv)

G A press conference was held by the National Party on 23 April 1981 at which the aforesaid Munnik spoke on the issues referred to in subpara (iii) above.

(v)

At the said conference the said Munnik stated, inter alia, that an H elderly person needs only R20 per month for food to maintain a healthy diet.

(vi)

The said statement appeared in a large number of newspapers, including the Rand Daily Mail. A copy of the article in the Rand Daily Mail is annexed to the plaintiff's particulars of claim, marked 'A'.

(vii)

On 24 April 1981 the said Munnik stated that reports that he had said that old people needed

Coetzee J

only R20 per month for food and quoted him out of context.

(viii)

The said Munnik further denied that he had said that pensioners should live on R20 per month and expressed the intention to A complain to the Press Council and the Steyn Commission of Enquiry into the Mass Media about reports concerning his statement of 23 April 1981.

(ix)

The allegations made by the said Munnik as referred to in subparas B (vii) and (viii) above, were widely reported and criticised in the press.

(x)

In particular, it was reported that -

(aa)

Pensioners described Munnik's statement as 'childish', 'ridiculous' and 'rubbish' - C (Star, 24 April 1981).

(bb)

The Official Opposition spokesman on welfare and pensions, Mr Alf Widman, had issued a challenge to Munnik to set an example for pensioners and live on R20 per month for food - (Star, 24 April 1981).

(cc)

Mr Vause Raw, leader of the New D Republican Party, said that Munnik should resign or be dismissed, since nothing Munnik could say would restore the confidence of pensioners - (Sunday Times, 26 April 1981).

(dd)

The Sunday Express newspaper challenged Munnik to live on R20 E per month.

(xi)

On 26 April 1981 the Prime Minister entered the debate on food and pensioners by making a statement on television during the 8 o'clock news that the health diet alluded to by the said Munnik had not been reported to the F Cabinet or used as a basis for the calculation of pensions.

(xii)

(aa)

On 26 April 1981 the said Munnik released to the South African Press Association a copy of a telegram sent G by him to the said Steyn Commission.

(bb)

The text of the said telegram was, at about midnight on 26 April 1981, transmitted by telex to a number of newspapers, including the Citizen newspaper. A copy of the said telex is annexed hereto marked 'C'.

(xiii)

On 27 April 1981 a number of H newspapers, including the Citizen and the Rand Daily Mail, published the text of the said telegram.

B.

In consequence of the circumstances set out in para A above, the defendants aver that the publication of annexure 'B' to the plaintiff's further particulars concerned a matter of substantial public interest which had been widely debated in the press.

Coetzee J

(c)

Save as aforesaid, the remaining allegations are admitted.

6.

Ad para 6 (c):

The defendants deny each and every allegation contained in this subparagraph.

7.

A Ad para 7:

The defendants deny each and every allegation contained in this paragraph."

The plaintiff did not admit the facts in para (b) A but their correctness was not challenged in any way and indeed formed the B basis of argument by both sides. They were regarded as common cause and are borne out by the material contained in the bundle of mainly newspaper clippings which was handed in by consent. These clippings certainly tell a story. It is notorious that South Africa's press falls mainly into two categories ("the Government press" and "the Opposition press"), the Government C press being those daily or Sunday newspapers which broadly support the Government and the Opposition press being those daily or Sunday newspapers which support the Official Opposition of South Africa, the Progressive Federal Party ("PFP"). The Opposition press is mainly the English language press with the exception of The Citizen, which is known to D support the Government rather than the Opposition.

The whole press gave the controversy front page, inside page and leader page treatment and for almost a week, judging by these extracts, South Africa spoke of little else. It is necessary to summarise the progress of the public argument in order to determine the context of the statement complained of...