Publications
Partners
Karl Marx obviously did not have IFP leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi in mind when he wrote: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”
The octogenarian (87) has asked for a R200 000 default order against Durban academic and political analyst Protas Madlala at the South Gauteng High Court for calling him a “violent man’’ in a newspaper interview six years ago.
This is the second time the elderly statesman is attempting to whack the lethal tongue of his critic over the same article.
Buthelezi had previously instituted legal action against Business Day and Madlala following the publication of a “libellous article” about the IFP that appeared in the paper on June 20 2010. “The article contained a wrongful and defamatory statement made by Mr Madlala in which he attacked the integrity and character of Prince Buthelezi,” his party argued at the time.
Madlala has been a vocal critic of Buthelezi since the 1980s, when he was a community activist involved in political struggles in areas which resisted incorporation into the then KwaZulu Bantustan, which Buthelezi headed as its Chief Minister.
Buthelezi’s defamation case against BDFM Publishers and Business Day editor Peter Bruce over the 2010 article was dismissed with costs by the court in 2012.
In papers to the court, Buthelezi has argued that he had brought the earlier defamation action against Madlala and BDFM and Bruce, but that Madlala had failed to meet the cutoff date for defending the application.
At the time the summons were served at Madlala’s place of business, the eThekwini Business Development Centre, but Madlala had failed to give notice of his intention to defend.
As a result, Buthelezi has argued that his nemesis (Madlala) was in default and that the situation remained unresolved.
For this reason, Buthelezi asked the court to grant him a default judgment of R200 000, with 15.5% per year interest since the date of summons in 2011.
Madlala said he believed that Buthelezi was targeting him because he had not personally defended the action. This was because he held a view that the case had been brought against the media house BDFM, which successfully defended the matter at the time.
“It seems that he is using that loophole to get at me. I’m puzzled by this. I did not defame anybody. This is happening because I have been a critic of the man since the 1980s,” he said.
Madlala made the comments in his capacity as an analyst and would defend the action by the IFP leader. He said he had also contacted the Press Ombudsman for assistance in resolving the matter.
Buthelezi’s attorney, Lourens De Klerk, confirmed that his client was pursuing action against Madlala. Buthelezi had appealed against the 2012 ruling against him, and the newspaper had settled before the appeal hearing.
“We appealed against the judgment, but before the matter went on appeal, the newspaper settled. Mr Madlala was one of the respondents. We are now pursuing action against him as the person who made the defamatory statement.’’
The article, titled “Buthelezi sounds that familiar warning”, appeared in June 2010.
In it, Madlala was interviewed as an analyst, and said that Buthelezi always had been a violent man with a “history of threatening his opponents with a possibility of violence when he did not get what he wanted”.
