BLOEMFONTEIN – Fezile Dabi Civic Movement President and traditional leader Tibisi April Motaung II has officially hit back against the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) on Wednesday, 15 July 2026. Motaung filed an answering affidavit in the Free State Division of the High Court, firmly denying allegations of defamation brought forward by EFF Provincial Secretary Bosanku Msimanga.
The legal battle stems from a May 5, 2026 court ruling. In that matter, Msimanga successfully secured an urgent High Court interdict restraining Motaung from making allegedly defamatory statements on social media and public platforms.
The court found that Motaung II had been making defamatory statements against Msimanga, particularly on social media and in public platforms.
Motaung II firmly denied all allegations of defamation. Instead, the legal papers argue that the statements in question are substantially true, factually sound, and constitute fair comment. According to the affidavit, these communications were issued strictly in the public interest.
At the center of the dispute are claims regarding the administration of the Metsimaholo Local Municipality and the Zamdela community. The respondent argued that in their dual capacity as a traditional leader and a civic movement president, they hold a strong social and constitutional obligation to advocate for residents.
“I deny that any statements made by myself or the Fezile Dabi Civic Movement constitute defamation, the communication complained of by the Applicant are substantially true, factually sound, and represent fair comment issued strictly in the public interest.
“In my capacity as a traditional leader and civic movement president, I bear a constitutional and social obligation to protect public resources and advocate for transparency on behalf of the residents of Zamdela and the broader Metsimaholo Local Municipality.”
When questioned by City Report about the ongoing legal matter, Msimanga declined to comment on the specific details. Citing the legal principle of sub judice—which means a matter is currently being considered by a court.
“The matter is before the court,” Msimanga explained. “It would be sub judice if we are discussing something which is sub judice.”
This legal pushback sets the stage for a major courtroom battle regarding the balance between freedom of speech, political accountability, and defamation law within Free State municipalities.
The High Court is expected to review the answering affidavit to determine if the standing interdict will be challenged further or taken to a full trial.
