Former SA Revenue Services (Sars) spokesperson Adrian Lackay on Tuesday, 1 November 2016, defended defamation claims, to the value of a "preposterous" R12 million, brought against him by his erstwhile employer and its commissioner Tom Moyane.
The matter was argued at the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, where Lackay's lawyer Max du Plessis slated Sars' case.
This in an exception application, seeking to effectively have the claims against Lackay thrown out of court.
Du Plessis said the amount of R10 million claimed by Sars and R2 million claimed by Moyane is preposterous and must be substantiated by the two parties.
Moyane and Sars are suing Lackay for allegedly defamatory statements he made in a letter to Parliament titled, "Sars: This is the inside story".
In the letter Lackay suggested that Moyane had misled Parliament and the nation, relating to the alleged establishment of a "rouge investigation unit" at Sars.
For Lackay, Du Plessis argued that Sars and Moyane had failed to grasp the legal test for defamation in their case.
He said the applicants looked at Lackay's statements in isolation, ignoring their context.
"You don't pick out the words that you think are defamatory and say, 'hey presto, those words are defamatory'."
He said that Lackay's comments were not intended for public consumption but rather for a limited audience - Parliament, where privilege is given against defamation claims.
He added that Lackay's allegedly defamatory statements did not amount to a final conclusion on Sars and Moyane.
"On the contrary, it raises Mr Lackay's concerns so that they might be 'properly interrogated'.
"He expressly records that 'the lack of reaching a conclusion on the true facts has harmed and continues to harm Sars as an institution'."
Du Plessis said further that in South African law an organ of state like Sars cannot sue for defamation, as was established by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Du Plessis said Sars and Moyane had failed to justify the damages claimed against Lackay, saying the figures seemed thumb-sucked.
"The amount is so preposterous that they need to explain. The only option [one is] left with is that it is an attempt to threaten and muzzle [Lackay]."
Advocate William Mokhari SC for Sars and Moyane argued, however, that the claims against Lackay are valid and that Lackay was raising "frivolous" issues on exception, which should be dealt with in the defamation hearing instead.
The court has reserved its judgment and will notify parties when it has decided whether to grant the exception.
Source: The Times
