CAPE TOWN ­ Author Ronald Suresh Roberts’s claim against Johncom Media Investments was dismissed yesterday in the Cape High Court in a judgment that found he had been “vindictive and venomous” in attacks on public figures and that his conduct as a lawyer “in certain respects” had been “improper”.

Acting Judge Leslie Weinkove dismissed Roberts’s claim for defamation *1 with costs, including the cost of two counsel, a severe legal sanction. It is believed Roberts’s legal costs could easily exceed R1m.

The judgment reiterated the “balancing act” that had to be struck between the constitutional right of an individual to maintain a “reputation and good name”, and the right to freedom of speech and the press.

Roberts, who was not in court yesterday, sued Johncom over an article written by freelance journalist Chris Barron and published in the Sunday Times under the headline “The unlikable Mr Roberts”.

The article said he had been dismissed from legal firm Deneys Reitz after a conflict of interest arose over his association with US singer Whitney Houston’s business organisation and that he had pursued the SABC relentlessly over a complaint that it had inadvertently used a participant in a talk show who had been involved in a case of child abuse.

Weinkove found the Sunday Times had acted “reasonably” in all the circumstances in its decision to publish Barron’s article and that the article was also published “without negligence or fault sufficient to render it liable for damages for defamation”.

Weinkove found the article had also been published in the public interest and he agreed with Johncom that Roberts was a public figure who “has been involved in robust public discourse, including harsh, venomous criticism of other public figures”.

Weinkove said Roberts’s public attacks on Nobel literature prize winner Nadine Gordimer, author William Mervyn Gumede, Judge Ramon Leon and others had set a standard “which legitimately constitutes an invitation to be used in judging him (Roberts)”.

He described Roberts as “haughty and arrogant, not only in his manner of correspondence, but also in his manner in court”.

Weinkove said Roberts had displayed a “grandiose sense of self-importance and an unreasonable expectation of especially favourable treatment”.

“He engaged in name-dropping and he purported to enjoy the patronage of people who occupy high positions in the corridors or power and influence in the new SA,” said Weinkove.

He listed among his “patrons” the Mandela family, former minister Kader Asmal and President Thabo Mbeki, Weinkove said.

Weinkove agreed with Johncom that Roberts had been an “unbalanced, paranoid and obsessed complainant” in his pursuit of the SABC.

He said Roberts’s correspondence with the SABC had shown signs of “excessive emotionality, inappropriate and provocative behaviour”, and that Roberts had “an unreasonable expectation of especially favourable treatment and he was contemptuous and impatient with others”.

Weinkove said he had found Roberts to be an “evasive, argumentative and an opportunistic witness”. He said Roberts had been secretly appointed to act for the Houston group and that Deneys Reitz was only advised of this situation later.

Weinkove said a letter Roberts had written to Tiego Moseneke at legal firm Moseneke and Partners had been “improper” and that he was in effect hawking work to a competing firm of attorneys.

“It is fair comment to suggest that the Law Society would at least investigate a South African lawyer for conduct of this nature.”

Brendan O’Dowd, Roberts’s lawyer, said yesterday the judgment would first have to be studied before he could comment.

O’Dowd said he did not know why Roberts was not at court to hear the judgment yesterday.

With acknowledgements to Chris van Gass and Business Day.

Why Zuma Won't Tell All *

The Natal Witness

Susan Segar

15 October 2005

http://www.witness.co.za/content%5C2005_10%5C38006.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/nincompoop