Johannesburg, March 24, 2026

Keynote Speaker: Thanduxolo Jika 

Good afternoon. 

As a newspaper journalist, I’m not used to being in front. I prefer being part of the crowd. It’s much easier for me to take notes, than being in front of everyone else. Anyway, before I get to my hellish 2025 year, I’ve prepared a little speech with regard to our topic today. 

Today, Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, and defenders of truth. We gather here at a time when journalism is under pressure, not only from misinformation, political hostility, or declining revenues, but from something far more calculated. The strategic abuse of the law to silence scrutiny, SLAPPS, gag orders, and protection orders. These are all legal tools designed for justice, but are repurposed to suppress it. 

A strategic litigation against public participation is not about winning a case. It is about exhausting the journalist. It is about draining resources. It is about sending a message. If you investigate us, we will bury you in paper and procedure. These lawsuits are all weapons. And the battlefield is the courtroom. 

What is the pattern that we see?  

Across South Africa and globally, powerful individuals, corporations and politically connected networks are turning to litigation, not to defend their reputations, but to deter investigations.  

What is the formula that we see?  

A journalist uncovers corruption. A publication prepares to expose wrongdoing. Before the story lands or immediately after, legal threats flood in, defamation claims seek millions, urgent interdicts demand the removal, headquarters, attempting to freeze the reporting, and protection orders are sought to intimidate reporters personally. The objective is very simple. Create fear, create costs, create delay because delay is the enemy of accountability.  

Why does this matter?  

When a Journalist is silenced, it’s not only the reporter who suffers. It is the public. It is the taxpayer. It is the citizens who depend on information to make democratic choices. 

Let me say informed democratic choices. When investigative reporting is chilled, corruption flourishes in the dark. Organised crime networks strengthen, public Institutions weaken, and the powerful operate without scrutiny. A democracy without a free press is not a democracy. It is a theatre.

The psychological impact of SLAPPS.  

SLAPPS are not only financial attacks; they are also about psychological warfare. They are designed to isolate a journalist, to make editors second guess, to make whistleblowers retreat, and to make the newsroom risk-averse. Young reporters begin to ask, “Is this worth it?” And that question is precisely what intimidators want asked.  

How do we guard against legal suppression? 

First of all, we need strong editorial standards. Accuracy is our first line of defence. Rigorous fact-checking, documented evidence, fair comment, and careful legal review are shields against frivolous claims. Secondly, collective legal strategy. Media houses must collaborate, share legal expertise and support independent journalists who lack institutional backing. The law should not be a tool available only to the wealthy. 

Thirdly, public awareness. When a SLAPP is filed, expose it. Shine a light on the strategy. Public scrutiny often weakens abusive litigation.  

Fourthly, legal reform and judicial vigilance. Courts must be empowered and willing to identify and dismiss abusive lawsuits early. Judges play a crucial role in distinguishing between legitimate defamation claims and strategic intimidation. And we need solidarity as well across newsrooms. Competition must never override principle. When one newsroom is targeted unfairly, it is not their fight alone. It is ours.  

The role of journalists.  

As investigative journalists, we must not romanticise the risk. We must assess it soberly. But we must also refuse to be intimidated. We are not activists. We are not political actors. We are public interest reporters; our loyalty is to evidence, our duty is to truth, our obligation is to the public. The moment we allow legal bullying to determine what we investigate, we surrender the very reason journalism exists. 

Investigative journalism is rarely comfortable. It challenges systems, it confronts power, it disrupts entrenched interests. But discomfort to the powerful is not injustice. Scrutiny is not harassment, accountability is not defamation. Exposure of wrongdoing is not abuse. This now takes me to my own personal journey in 2025, where I was faced with a case of defamation and harassment of ANC former chaplain, Reverend Vukile Mehana and his wife, a high-ranking Education Department official. Who quickly, on a Friday, after I had sent questions to them, regarding their involvement in the basic education tender in the Eastern Cape. And, and how they had not declared that they were actually romantically involved whilst they were negotiating discounts in the tablets tender. The very controversial tablets tender. And soon after they had reached a settlement, they got married. I simply asked straightforward questions to understand if they had declared that conflict of interest. But none of them saw it as a conflict of interest. 

The more I pushed and asked questions, they ran to Midrand Police Station, opened a case of harassment and defamation against me. I was at that time, back home in the Eastern Cape. I get a call from a police officer.  A sergeant who says, “I need to present myself at the Midrand police station”. 

When I told him, “No, I’m not around Gauteng”. He said he was going to make means to arrest me in the Eastern Cape. 

Of course, I laughed because he was in Gauteng and I was in the Eastern Cape. The Eastern Cape is quite huge, so it wouldn’t be that simple to find me. But upon my return, the matter got really serious. The police officer was hounding me. Wanting a statement from myself and the editor.  

Once we were at the police station. I made it known to the police officer that defamation was no longer in this country a criminal matter. I know Dario was quite influential in assisting with those laws. He said to me, well, maybe in the suburbs where you live, defamation is not a criminal matter. But here, in Midrand Police Station, it’s a criminal matter. 

I was shocked. We were shocked because this was now not only an overzealous police officer, but this was a person invested in making sure that I stayed away from reporting any further about Reverend Mehana and his wife. On top of that, there was this harassment case, and I said, please, can you make me understand what this harassment case is? Did I follow them around? “No. You were calling them, and you WhatsApp them”. I was simply seeking answers. And I am required in the press code to do so. And for them to give their side of the story. 

Despite them giving their version. And we published that version in the newspaper. They still went ahead, and I was harassed by the police over this matter until I complained.

I met with Nicole and Anton Harber to seek advice on how to deal with this thing because, also internally, just as I mentioned in my speech earlier, you know, all of a sudden, these things create doubt amongst colleagues and editors. People want to retreat. Why are you focusing on this so much? 

But I managed to open a case against the police officer. I lodged a complaint with IPID (Independent Police Investigative Directorate). And the police officer was now retreating. It is only at that moment in time when the Mahana’s realised that I was fighting back. They then decided, oh, hang on. Let’s go to the press council, where they were told. But you cannot have a criminal case and also come here to complain about the story. I can tell you right now that I won that round at the Press Council, and they appealed. We still won? But besides this case, I was also. Issued with a 7-million-rand lawsuit demanding that I retract a story, and I’ll be held personally liable. 

This was from a fellow who was allegedly involved in illicit money flows. Money went to Croatia without him paying any taxes to our revenue services. I’d given this man enough time to comment. I’d gone to see him. He had given me his version of events. But he was not happy with the truth. 

And so, myself and the editor were sued for 7 million rand each. I’m still waiting to see how far that goes. 

But it is quite disturbing to a journalist. If you are an inexperienced journalist, of course, you’d run away. If you’re an inexperienced journalist, you will definitely retreat because your reputation is on the line. You don’t know if people will believe you. People start doubting the credibility of the story. So, it is quite important for us that we strengthen newsrooms and support independent investigative journalists, advocate for anti-SLAPP protections and protect whistleblowers. Educate the public on why media freedom is their freedom. Because this is not a fight about journalists’ privileges. It is a fight about society’s right to know. 

In closing, ladies and gentlemen, the courtroom should never become a substitute for censorship. The threat of financial ruin should never replace factual rebuttal, and fear should never dictate the boundaries of truth. We guard against SLAPPS, gag orders, and abusive protection orders. Not because we seek confrontation, but because democracy demands courage. Thank you.

24 March 2026