The high court in Johannesburg dismissed Al Jama-ah and one of its members’ application for leave to appeal and to overturn an interdict in favour of the City of Johannesburg’s former crime-busting boss, Shadrack Sibiya.
The party and its member, former MMC for development planning Thapelo Amad, appealed an interdict in relation to allegations they made against Sibiya.
Al Jama-ah and Amad appealed against an interdict preventing them from making defamatory statements against Sibiya, former head of Group Forensics Investigations Services (GFIS), in connection with his appointment.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
According to the judgment, Sibiya believed that the veracity of the assault on him by the respondents was a result of an ongoing investigation conducted by the GFIS.
This after the GFIS received information from a whistle-blower on April 21 that Amad, when he was MMC, “purportedly represented” the Johannesburg Development Agency and improperly entered into a memorandum of understanding on October 4 2021 with a chair of a private company.
Amad, the judgment stated, had written statements and conducted media interviews about Sibiya between March and May this year.
Sibiya’s legal team argued that Amad’s statements were defamatory and were intended to cause harm.
The judgment stated that the respondents argued that Amad’s statements were true and justified because they were made as a result of a report compiled by Tshiqi Zebediela Attorneys. The attorneys were appointed by the City of Johannesburg after Al Jama-ah lodged a complaint that Sibiya’s appointment was irregular and unlawful.
TimesLIVE reported in April that the Zebediela report confirmed Al Jama-ah’s allegations and recommended that Sibiya’s appointment be rescinded because it was in contravention of the city’s talent-acquisition policy framework.
Sibiya, the former boss of the Gauteng Hawks, resigned from the GFIS in June after he had successfully appealed his dismissal from the SA Police Service in the labour appeal court in May.
After Monday’s judgment, Sibiya said: “I have not procured any spying equipment and I have never spied on anyone or used anyone to spy on anyone or conduct any malicious investigations against anyone.
“No matter how many times they drum it up or repeat these false allegations against me, it will never change anything because the truth of the matter is that there [is] no spying equipment.” He said if anyone repeats “this false narrative”, he would not hesitate to fight for his “good name and good reputation”.
Ganief Hendricks, Al-Jamah-ah's president, said their attorneys had advised them that a different court will come to a different finding based on the merits advanced.
“The ex-mayor and ex-speaker did not do enough to support councillors in carrying out their oversight role and in this matter that was profound. We hope that the new speaker and new mayor will support councillors in quests to perform their oversight role and hold powers that be to account,” said Hendricks.
TimesLIVE
Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.
In his judgment delivered on October 3, judge Molefe Matsemela dismissed the appeal to interdict Amad and Al Jama-ah which prevented them from publishing statements citing that the Al Jama-ah and Amad have wholly failed to satisfy the requirements as set out in the Appeals Act.
“As it stands, the application for leave to appeal has no legal merits and therefore (I) make the following order: The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs including the costs of two legal counsels,” said Matsemela.
When handing down judgment on the interdict on June 2, Matsemela said even though the media statement containing allegations against Sibiya was removed, the unlawful publications and statements made by the appellants expanded far beyond that.
“The appellants made various defamatory statements to the press on 30 March 2022, 14 April 2022, 20 April 2022 and 22 April 2022, which statements were quoted verbatim and were disseminated nationally.”
Amad and Al Jama-ah were interdicted from making and publishing any statements saying or implying that:
— Sibiya’s appointment was irregular and he is unfit for office;
— GFIS improperly procured sophisticated surveillance technology for the purpose of spying on councillors;
— GFIS is engaging in improper and unlawful conduct by spying on councillors and gathering information by illegal means, including intercepting councillors' communications and “tapping phones”;
– Sibiya has not obtained the requisite security clearance from the State Security Agency;
— GFIS is a “rogue unit” that lacks credibility, integrity, impartiality; and
— Sibiya (and GFIS) were politically motivated or politically compromised.
Matsemela said the appellants contended that “they are entitled to publish the statements”.
He said the party and its member’s conduct showcases “an unrepentant attitude that clearly evidences that they do not intend to put an end to their conduct and the appellants’ ongoing agenda is a direct and concerted campaign aimed to malign the applicant and in so doing causing him serve prejudice”, said Matsemela.
In an urgent application on June 2, Sibiya asked the court for protection against the respondents’ unlawful and defamatory statements.
He argued that the GFIS lawfully procured anti-surveillance equipment, that he had the requisite security clearance certificate and that the department’s employees were trained by the SSA to use the anti-surveillance equipment, which was approved by the council.
Matsemela said public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s 2018 investigation had found that the anonymous allegations that Sibiya’s appointment was improper and irregular were unsubstantiated.
He said the report has not been challenged, reviewed or set aside. But the time frame for such a review had lapsed because Mkhwebane’s report was issued more than 180 days ago, the judge said.
