Journalist accuses Unisa of using court action to silence criticism

Naidu, the owner of online publication EdNews.Africa, says the university’s amended application is an attempt to intimidate him and restrict reporting on matters of public interest. Unisa disputes that characterisation and maintains that articles published by Naidu contain false and defamatory statements that have harmed the institution’s reputation.

Journalist describes case as a Slapp suit

In a supplementary answering affidavit, Naidu argued that the latest proceedings should be dismissed as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, commonly referred to as a Slapp suit.

Such cases generally involve legal action that is alleged to be aimed not only at resolving a dispute, but also at burdening, intimidating or discouraging public criticism. In this matter, Naidu says the litigation is being used against him because of his reporting on a public university and its governance.

“This application is nothing more than an ill-conceived, meritless, vindictive and intimidatory campaign against me and, by extension, other members of the press and the public,” Naidu said in his affidavit.

He further argued that Unisa had relied on a questionable defamation claim brought by an institution rather than an individual, and that the university had not provided credible evidence of actual or continuing harm.

Naidu also alleged that Unisa was using public funds and its resources to pursue litigation against dissenting voices. He said the university’s legal budget appeared “boundless” and that the case formed part of a wider pattern of proceedings affecting freedom of expression.

Unisa rejects allegations of intimidation

Unisa has rejected Naidu’s allegations and said the disputed reports continue to damage its reputation among students, staff, funders, alumni and members of the public.

Acting executive director of legal services Lucas Mabusela said the statements remain available online and continue to be circulated or republished. The university argues that this ongoing availability justifies its request for court intervention.

Unisa is seeking final declaratory and interdictory relief against Naidu and EdNews.Africa. The relief relates to articles concerning the university’s governance and working conditions, as well as statements the institution says are false and defamatory.

Dispute follows reports about staff deaths

The legal dispute centres partly on reports that three Unisa staff members, including two academics, died in June. The reports included allegations linking the deaths to stress and exhaustion after the university allegedly decided not to renew contracts for markers and tutors.

Another contested claim concerned allegations that access to EdNews.Africa had been blocked on Unisa’s Wi-Fi network after the publication reported on the deaths.

Unisa sought the removal of the disputed statements and an order restricting their further publication. The university’s position is that continued circulation has caused reputational harm and that the courts should prevent further dissemination.

Naidu, however, says the reports concern issues of public interest and that the amended proceedings still amount to an effort to punish or silence him and his publication.

Earlier urgent application removed from roll

Unisa initially brought the matter as an urgent application. That application was struck off the urgent roll in August after the court found that it did not meet the requirements for urgency and did not comply with the relevant practice directive.

Being struck off an urgent roll does not determine the underlying dispute. It means the matter was not allowed to proceed on an expedited basis in the form presented to the court. The parties may still pursue the substantive issues through the ordinary legal process, subject to the court’s directions.

Unisa has since abandoned the urgency component and amended its approach. It is now pursuing final relief through the ordinary court process instead of asking for the matter to be heard urgently.

Freedom of expression at the centre of the dispute

The case places competing concerns before the court. Unisa says it is entitled to protect its reputation from statements it considers false and damaging. Naidu says legal action by a well-resourced public institution can have a chilling effect on journalism, particularly when the reporting involves governance and working conditions.

Freedom of expression protects the media’s ability to scrutinise institutions, but it does not remove the legal consequences that may follow from defamatory publication. At the same time, court proceedings can have a wider impact when the respondent is an individual journalist or a small publication facing a large institution.

Naidu said the litigation was making an example of him during what he described as a period of widespread dissent linked to a governance crisis at Unisa. The university’s case is that the disputed statements remain harmful and require legal intervention.

The court process will determine whether Unisa’s claims meet the requirements for the declaratory and interdictory relief it seeks, and whether Naidu’s argument that the proceedings constitute a Slapp suit is sustainable. Until those issues are decided, the allegations made by both sides remain contested.