- The court confirms that claims about an R82 million Unisa security tender awarded to Tebogo Letsie were false, unlawful, and defamatory.
- Judge Fanie Labuschagne interdicts Simamkele Xani from repeating the allegations and warns that activism cannot be used to damage reputations.
- Unisa says it will act against anyone spreading false information as the court orders punitive costs and disallows legal fees.
The University of South Africa (Unisa) has welcomed a Pretoria High Court judgment that brings to an end what it describes as the repeated peddling of false and defamatory claims about a non-existent R82 million security tender.
In a statement issued on Saturday, 24 January 2026, Unisa said it “notes and welcomes the judgment in the application brought by Tebogo Letsie, the chairperson of Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Higher Education”.
The university said the court had found that allegations made and repeated by Simamkele Xani, that Letsie was awarded a security tender by Unisa and its Principal and Vice Chancellor Professor Puleng LenkaBula, were “false, unlawful and defamatory” and that they “impugn his good name and dignity”.
Unisa reiterated that “no such tender was ever awarded to Mr Letsie or any individual or entity,” warning that the continued circulation of the falsehood not only harmed Letsie but also damaged the reputation of the university and its leadership. It added that it “will not hesitate to hold any person peddling false information about itself and its officials, legally accountable”.
Allegations that threatened a political career
The urgent application arose after Xani and others repeated claims that LenkaBula had corruptly awarded Letsie a three-year security tender worth R82 million on behalf of Unisa. Letsie approached the court for urgent relief, seeking an order restraining further publication and a declaration that the statements were unlawful and defamatory.
Judge Fanie Labuschagne accepted that the matter was urgent and that the publication carried serious political consequences. Letsie chairs Parliament’s higher education committee, and the allegations were circulated days before an ANC national conference.
“As the applicant is Chairperson of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Higher Education, the adverse allegations against him could trigger the step aside policy of the ANC,” the judge observed, adding that the publication “has the capacity to harm the applicant in his political career”.
The court accepted that the continued availability of the statements on social media exposed Letsie to “ongoing and prolonged reputational harm, humiliation, and indignity”.
Patently false and defamatory
Central to the ruling was Unisa’s explanatory affidavit, which the court treated as decisive. In a passage quoted in the judgment, the university stated that the allegation that its Principal and Vice Chancellor awarded a security tender to Letsie was “patently false and defamatory”.
Unisa told the court that it “has not procured any security services in the past five years” and that all security services at the institution are handled internally.
“This renders the allegation made by Simamkele Xani to be unfounded and false,” the affidavit stated, adding that the claim was intended to damage the good name of Unisa, LenkaBula, and Letsie.
Judge Labuschagne was unsparing in his criticism of the conduct that gave rise to the application. He described it as “completely unbecoming” and said Xani had made “false and unsubstantiated allegations, hugely defamatory allegations, without producing proof of that fact”.
“This is the conduct the court should frown at and censure,” he said. The judge also noted that the allegation had been circulating since 2021 and had already given rise to previous litigation, yet no supporting facts had ever been produced.
Activism and the limits of protection
Xani portrayed himself as an activist and whistleblower exposing irregularities at Unisa, including disputes surrounding the appointment of Professor LenkaBula as Vice Chancellor. The court accepted that exposing wrongdoing and waste of public funds is legitimate, but stressed that it must be grounded in verifiable fact.
“While it is an honourable thing to point out irregularities and the wastage of public funds,” the judge said, “the facts on which those allegations are based have to be stated, must be correct, and cannot be patently false.”
He rejected the defence that the publication amounted to a protected disclosure and held instead that Xani “has published and repeated a patently false defamatory allegation against the applicant”.
The answering affidavit, running to 260 pages, was sharply criticised for inflating the dispute and introducing irrelevant grievances. The judge observed that Xani “expects the applicant to deal with that issue rather than the defamatory statement that he has been awarded a corrupt tender”.
Protecting dignity and reputation
Judge Labuschagne found that Letsie had established a clear right to the protection of his dignity and good name. “I am satisfied that on the facts the applicant has established the risk of repetition of the false allegations made against him and that he has established an entitlement to protect his good name and dignity,” he said.
The court accordingly interdicted and restrained Xani, pending further proceedings, from publishing, republishing, or disseminating in any form or on any platform the allegation that LenkaBula, acting for Unisa, awarded a security tender worth R82 million to Letsie.
A stern rebuke on costs
The judgment concludes with a pointed rebuke on costs. The court disallowed any fees to Xani’s attorney arising from the drafting of the answering affidavit and ordered Xani to pay Letsie’s costs on the punitive attorney and client scale.
Judge Labuschagne said the unnecessary inflation of the papers and the introduction of irrelevant issues were “worthy of censure”. Although he declined to make a personal costs order against the attorney, he warned that the lawyer “should have known better than to blindly comply with such instructions, without even a basic enquiry into the factual basis for the relevant allegations”.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
