SLAPP legal battle in Western Cape: Implications for freedom of speech

A high-profile legal dispute in the Western Cape High Court has ignited a national conversation over the boundaries of free speech and the potential misuse of litigation in South Africa. The case involves UCT professor Adam Mendelsohn, who has launched a defamation suit against anti-Zionist activist and University of Cape Town alumnus Megan Choritz, demanding an unconditional apology and legal costs amounting to R500,000. The lawsuit stems from a TikTok video and a related Substack article published by Choritz, both of which criticized Mendelsohn and his views on Zionism, Israel, and Gaza. Choritz has responded by filing a special plea alleging that the lawsuit constitutes a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), aimed at silencing dissent through costly legal proceedings. The legal battle began after Choritz posted a TikTok video titled “Why are Zionists given platforms at UCT?” followed by a Substack article discussing Mendelsohn’s inaugural lecture at the university. In these posts, she accused Mendelsohn of supporting genocide, being an Islamophobe, and holding racist views. Mendelsohn, however, maintains that the content of the video and article was defamatory and sought to damage his reputation. He has taken issue with Choritz’s portrayal of him and has previously opposed UCT’s decisions regarding honorary doctorates awarded to individuals associated with the Middle East. Choritz has argued that the lawsuit is not based on legitimate grounds but is instead an attempt to stifle public discourse and critical commentary. Her legal team, representing her through Ashmodien Attorneys Inc., submitted a special plea on August 7, 2026, asserting that the litigation is a form of “lawfare” intended to deter her and others from engaging in open debate on sensitive topics such as Zionism, Israel, and Gaza. She contends that the case poses a risk of chilling effects on free speech and could undermine constitutional rights to opinion and expression. The significance of this case lies in its potential impact on how South African courts handle defamation claims involving public figures and controversial issues. If the court accepts Choritz’s argument that Mendelsohn’s lawsuit is a SLAPP, it could result in the immediate dismissal of the case without proceeding to trial. This would mark a rare instance where a court evaluates the legitimacy of a plaintiff’s motivations rather than the merits of the claim itself. Furthermore, if the court rules in favor of Choritz, Mendelsohn might be ordered to pay substantial legal costs, potentially serving as a deterrent against similar tactics in the future. The broader context of the dispute is rooted in ongoing debates at UCT surrounding Israel, Zionism, antisemitism, and the university’s policies toward individuals from the Middle East. Mendelsohn had previously opposed the granting of an honorary doctorate to Dr. Imtiaz Sooliman and has challenged certain UCT council resolutions related to the region. Choritz’s posts are framed within this larger discussion, positioning them as part of a wider political and social dialogue. She has raised three primary defenses: that the contested statements were expressions of political opinion, that they were based on factual information rather than mere opinion, and that there was no intent to harm Mendelsohn personally. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how courts in South Africa address SLAPP suits and the balance between protecting reputations and safeguarding free speech. While the court has yet to rule on the validity of Choritz’s claims, the case underscores the growing concern over the potential weaponization of the legal system to suppress dissent. As the legal process unfolds, all eyes remain on the Western Cape High Court to see how it navigates the complex interplay between individual rights and the responsibilities of public discourse.