Court rejects Two Oceans Marathon chairperson's bid to silence blogger
Image: Ian Landsberg/Independent Newspapers
The chairperson of Cape Town's well-known Two Oceans Marathon failed in her urgent court bid to gag a runner, who is also the author of a blog in which he has mentioned a number of "irregularities" and 'problems' which he said had arisen in races such as the Two Oceans Marathon.
Antoinette Cavanagh turned to the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, as she claimed that Stuart Mann - the author of a blog known as The Running Mann - has made defamatory statements on his blog.
He shares information about road running events and what he calls 'exposé articles'. He has apparently brought public attention to a number of irregularities and problems that arose in races including the Two Oceans and the Comrades Marathon. Cavanagh approached the court for relief stemming from four posts which Mann published on social media.
These include an article that appeared in December last year in which he queries whether Cavanagh is an appropriate person to chair the board of the Two Oceans. He set out apparent inconsistencies between her professional and running credentials as set out in a press release announcing her election on the one hand, and those details of her credentials which Mann was able to verify on the other hand.
In April this year he dealt with certain controversies that emerged during the 2025 iteration of the Two Oceans, including a shortage of bronze medals, which Mann contends was due to Two Oceans accepting more entries than it had a permit for.
He also insinuated that she has the board completely under her thumb, as well as publishing her CV which served before the board when she was elected chair. Cavanagh, in claiming the publications are defamatory and unlawful, wanted Mann to remove them and publish an apology. She also wanted an order preventing future publication of similar content.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Mann disputed the urgency of the application and denied that the content of the posts is defamatory or otherwise unlawful.
Judge Seena Yacoob commented that the 'chaotic' and 'vague' manner in which the application is pleaded does not commend itself to determination on an urgent basis, but she agreed to hear it on an urgent basis. She said both Cavanagh and the Two Oceans Marathon (cited as the second applicant) fail to set out a clear factual background.
In addition, the judge said, the applicant's papers contain neither the dates of the publications, nor the specific statements or utterances complained of. Cavanagh, however, said that she considers each publication defamatory in its entirety.
Judge Yacoob further noted that the publications consist of much material which is either not obviously defamatory, or not defamatory at all.
'Neither of the applicants have made out a case that the esteem in which they are held is of a particular type. Cavanagh does not favour the court with her own full history nor does she demonstrate that she is viewed with any particular esteem or that she has a reputation for integrity and good leadership.'
The judge added that the Two Oceans does not contend that it has run its events in a manner reasonably beyond criticism and above board. It does not even contend, let alone attempt to demonstrate that it has conducted its events lawfully and in a manner compliant with its permits from the City of Cape Town.
'There is no attempt to demonstrate that any of the factual claims made in the publications is untrue, although there is a bald allegation that they are all false,' Judge Yacoob said in turning down the application.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
When Playing Politics Misinforms the Public
The community of KwaNdengezi has been without running water for weeks which has made their lives even harder because it is during school holidays. Image: Tumi Pakkies / Independent Newspapers Media reports tell us that the Powers and Privileges Committee recently referred uMkhonto we Sizwe party member and parliamentarian, Visvin Reddy to the Disciplinary Committee following his yelling "Pemmy must go" on March 4, 2025 during a sitting of the National Assembly to debate unreliable water supply to residents in Germiston. The Pemmy in question being, of course, Minister of Water and Sanitation, Pemmy Majodina who Mr. Reddy blamed for her (mis)handling of that crisis. Next year, it will be 30 years since the promulgation of the Constitution. Next year too, we shall be voting in local elections and it is worth asking South Africans whether our politicians are serving us well. In this case, Mr. Reddy, rather than Ms. Majodina, failed South Africa dismally as he played politics. To begin, the complaint that was being debated on the day in question was in reference to a 2023 petition that affected residents of Wards 20, 29, 36 and 92 in Germiston. At that time, Ms. Majodina was not the Minister heading that portfolio. Even if she were, neither her Ministry nor would she have been the right person to rail against. Many of us do not know who owns water and generally it becomes an issue only when it's not flowing from our taps otherwise its not something we think much about. A small tutorial as received from Rand Water Chair who also happens to be Chair of Association of Water and Sanitation Institutions of South Africa (AWSISA), Mr. Ramateu Monyokolo proved that Mr. Reddy railed against the wrong person and department. In South Africa, water belongs to the Department of Water and Sanitation. The water boards then get water from the department and purify it and provide to municipalities. Municipalities provide the water to the consumers (us). And yes. Unfortunately this water doesn't always trickle down when we want it and how we want it but the rand and rant must and should stop, by and large, with municipalities who tend to politicise their roles, in the case in question, Ekurhuleni Municipality. Much like our Constitution which it is a part of, South Africa has a water policy that is admired worldwide but that does not always deliver to the people. In my chat with Mr. Monyokolo, I tried to understand how some of the problems we have in accessing water can be solved. The fact that, I, a regular Thandi, can be curious enough to be an active citizen and seek this information out should make the Honourable Member of Parliament, and his party, ask the same about his actions, more so because he has the responsibility of making laws for the rest of us. Perhaps the key questions that Mr. Reddy should have been asking – and which I have been asking since I travelled the country in an attempt to understand the state of the nation last year – should have been more on why, as we go into local elections next year, our municipalities are failing us in water provision. It's worth noting that in 1994, there were 19 Water Boards. Due to non-payment of bills by municipalities, many of those water boards went bankrupt and now we currently have seven water boards nationwide with at least two about to shut down due again to non-payment of bills timeously by municipalities. This is particularly irking as municipalities have no problem cutting water supplies when individuals and companies do not pay what's owed to them so why exactly are they not passing on the payments they receive from us so that water boards can continue doing their jobs? Both water boards, as State Owned Enterprises, and municipalities, are public bodies that exist to serve the people of South Africa. It would therefore be problematic for water boards to take the municipalities, some of them often bankrupt, to court to ensure that they meet their obligations. And water is a basic need so often water boards, at their own expense, find themselves providing water and then risking bankruptcy. How then do we ensure that municipalities keep their end of the bargain to the water boards and pay what is owed and how too do we ensure they provide service to residents so that we can be guaranteed clean water? These are the questions Mr. Reddy should be asking. Another worthwhile question to ask, again to municipalities, is how they are not serving the no/low-income citizens. Our national water policy gives us equitable access to water which includes Free Basic Water or subsidised basic water services to low-income households. Unfortunately while the idea is great in theory, it has been difficult to implement practically and this is not due to failure from the Department or the Water Boards but again from the municipalities and a different Ministry. The community of KwaNdengezi has been without running water for weeks which has made their lives even harder because it is during school holidays. Image: Tumi Pakkies / Independent Media
IOL News
5 hours ago
- IOL News
Operation Dudula's campaign against immigrants raises healthcare access concerns
In a controversial move that has sparked outrage and concern, the Operation Dudula Movement, led by Zandile Dabula, is intensifying its campaign against undocumented foreign nationals across South Africa. Image: Henk Kruger / Independent Newspapers With scores of undocumented foreign nationals currently being turned away at Addington Hospital in Durban and other health facilities in parts of the country this week, the leader of the Operation Dudula Movement, Zandile Dabula, has vowed to continue the movement's anti-foreigner healthcare campaign across the country. Eric Jean Butoki, who represents the Southern Africa Refugee Organisations Forum (SAROF), slammed the countrywide campaign, saying it is putting the lives of refugees, asylum seekers, and foreign nationals at risk. This comes as more than 50 patients, believed to be undocumented foreign nationals, have allegedly been turned away at Durban's biggest hospital since the start of the campaign outside Addington Hospital on Tuesday. "We are concerned about this operation, which has prevented foreign nationals, including asylum seekers and genuine refugees, from accessing medical help. Some of these people are on chronic medication and have made appointments to be treated on the scheduled dates. For us, we are disappointed by this Operation Dudula-sponsored campaign. As a result, Butoki has called on the government to establish permanent refugee camps to help resolve the matter. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad Loading In various videos circulated on social media over the past week, scores of immigrants seeking medical attention have been turned away, resulting in the South African Human Rights Commission issuing a statement stating that the South African Constitution allows foreigners, including asylum seekers and refugees, the same rights to healthcare as South African citizens. "The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) reminds the public and all relevant stakeholders that the right to access to healthcare services in South Africa is a universal right afforded to anyone within the Republic of South Africa," the commission said. Citing Section 27 (1) of the SA Constitution 1996, the commission indicated that South Africa has a provision to give healthcare access to South African citizens, refugees and asylum seekers, documented and undocumented foreign nationals, including stateless persons. "The Constitution does not qualify or limit this right based on immigration status or citizenship. Furthermore, under Section 27(3), no one may be refused emergency medical treatment. This provision ensures that emergency healthcare must be provided unconditionally by both the public and the private healthcare facilities," it said. Responding to this statement, Dabula said: "We will not be bullied by the likes of the SAHRC, because firstly, they are advocating for people who are in this country illegally. When you come to this country, you must be properly documented, and if you are documented, then you need to have certain permits. For those who are here to work, they must have a work permit, and those permits must come together with medical insurance, but they do not do that. Even Section 17 of the Constitution says that." As a result, Dabula said South Africa cannot be expected to shoulder immigrants who do not have respect for the country's laws, which is why the ongoing campaign will be intensified. "We have always said life comes first, and we will not turn away someone we can see that they require emergency medical care and might lose their lives in the process. However, what needs to happen is that they need to be arrested for being here in this country, illegally, then they can access treatment," she added. ActionSA has also weighed in on the ongoing campaign, saying the SAHRC statement is promoting the abuse of South Africa's resources through the misapplication of Section 27 of the Constitution, which is why the party has recently called for the amendment of the Constitution. Reacting to the stand-off between Operation Dudula and the SAHRC, Dr Shadi Ganoe from the Wits School of Law, indicated that while students and other migrants are required to provide their medical care insurance, the Constitution insists that no one should be refused healthcare based on their citizenship. "For example, in terms of the Immigration Amendment Act 19 of 2004, any prospective international student must have medical cover with a medical scheme registered under the Medical Schemes Act 131 of 1998. This ensures that foreign students do not rely on public health services and can access private care. "This requirement is part of the visa process and is strictly enforced. This makes foreign students and other documented long-term visa holders easy to track and regulate health care costs. They are expected to carry the burden of their own medical needs, unlike undocumented persons or asylum seekers, who may have no formal coverage at all. Still, South Africa's Constitution remains firm: Section 27(3) says, 'No one may be refused emergency medical treatment.' This applies to everyone, citizen or not, documented or not," she said.
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Appropriation Bill faces uncertainty as legal concerns mount
Standing committee on Appropriations chairperson Mmusi Maimane says if the Appropriation Bill fails to pass in its entirety, it will have to return to the committee to be processed. Image: Itumeleng English / Independent Newspapers The fate of the Appropriation Bill hangs in the balance as the Standing Committee on Appropriations is saddled with a legal opinion stating how voting should take place if the bill is to be passed. This came up when committee chairperson Mmusi Maimane briefed the parliamentarians about a legal opinion he received from the parliamentary legal services at the conclusion of the public hearing on the 2025 Eskom Debt Amendment Bill on Wednesday. Maimane said their job as the committee was not to get involved necessarily with the politics of goings-on inside the Government of National Unity. 'All I sought to seek is a legal opinion, guiding, whether, when we do scheduling of votes, what happens in an event when some don't pass and some do, given this was consultation on the Appropriations Bill,' he said. Maimane also said the National Assembly table has advised that the Appropriations Bill has to be adopted in its entirety if it is going to pass. 'Therefore, it will mean that if it fails to pass in its entirety, it will have to return to this respective committee to then be processed from then on as consistent with the Money Bills and Related Matters Act. I though it is important for members to be appraised,' he said. The parliamentary rules set out the process to be followed in passing the Appropriation Bill. 'The Assembly must first decide on the separate votes in the schedule to an appropriation Bill (in the case of a main appropriation Bill, when the debate on supplementary amounts has been concluded) and thereafter on the schedule,' reads rule 328. Maimane said he was really committed to making sure that the Appropriation Bill is passed so that it can be sent to the National Council of Provinces for concurrence. 'We have to make sure that the bill from that point on can then proceed as it is. I thought I have to appraise members on the question we have to be engaged with as we go forward,' he added. Maimane said he would share the legal opinion when it was written after DA MP Kingsley's Hope Wakelin asked whether he was going to seek or has sought the legal opinion. 'I have sought one and that was the advice that I was given. Hopefully once its all written up I will send it,' said Maimane when Wakelin asked to be given the copy of the legal opinion. He also said he would send a notification to MPs on the activities of the committee to finalise the processing of the Appropriation Bill. The turn of events come against the backdrop of the second biggest party in the GNU, the DA, having lived up to its promise to vote against the Budget of the department led by 'compromised ministers and deputy minister'. This after President Cyril Ramaphosa fired former deputy minister Andrew Whitfield after he undertook a trip to the US without authorisation. On Saturday, DA leader John Steenhuisen said his party will vote against upcoming departmental Budget votes for the departments headed by Human Settlements Minister Thembi Simelane, Higher Education Minister Nobuhle Nkabane, and other 'corruption-accused ANC Ministers'. He said they will keep voting against those departmental votes until those ministers were removed. 'In this way, the DA will strike the appropriate balance by allowing the broader GNU Budget process to proceed to ensure the stability of the country, while forcing the ANC to act against specific Ministers. 'If the ANC wants our support for those departmental budgets, they must replace the incumbent Ministers with alternatives that meet the very standard the President has set for himself through Whitfield's axing,' Steenhuisen said. The DA has already rejected the budget for the Department of Human Settlements in the National Assembly and the Higher Education Department's budget in the National Council of Provinces. The Higher Education Department's budget will be debated in the National Assembly on Thursday afternoon.
