A groundbreaking legal battle is unfolding in the Western Cape High Court that could have major and far-reaching implications for freedom of speech and the misuse of litigation in South Africa.
The case centres on anti-Zionist activist and UCT alumna Megan Choritz, the defendant, and UCT Professor Adam Mendelsohn, the plaintiff.
It started when Mendelsohn instituted a R500,000 defamation action in the Western Cape High Court against Choritz and seeks an unconditional apology and legal costs.
This follows a a TikTok video posted by Choritz titled, “Why are Zionists given platforms at UCT?”, and a subsequent Substack article relating to Mendelsohn and his inaugural lecture at UCT.
Choritz has separately filed a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) defence, asking the court to dismiss the entire action. She is seeking dismissal of the claims with punitive costs.
In layman’s terms, SLAPP is a term used to describe lawsuits designed not to win on legal merits but to intimidate or silence critics through costly litigation.
In her special plea, Choritz asserts that Mendelsohn’s lawsuit is a tool of “lawfare” and abuses the justice system as a weapon to suppress criticism. She argues the case is less about resolving a legitimate dispute and more about silencing her public participation.
This special plea, submitted on August 7 2026 by Ashmodien Attorneys Inc., uses detailed arguments from Choritz’s main defence, and urges the court to dismiss Mendelsohn’s claims entirely.
She alleges that the litigation amounts to “lawfare” pursued for an improper purpose and is intended to deter her and others from speaking critically about Mendelsohn, Zionism, Israel and Gaza.
She argues that the litigation risks having a “chilling effect on public discourse and debate” and affecting constitutional freedoms of opinion and expression.
What does this mean?
If the court upholds Choritz’s SLAPP defence, it would dispose of Mendelsohn’s claim without trial.
This would be a rare instance where a case ends on the question of whether the plaintiff’s motives behind the lawsuit are legitimate.
Mendelsohn would also likely face a hefty cost order, in a bid to discourage future misuse of the courts.
A ruling in favour of the defendant would signal a strong judicial stance against SLAPP suits in South Africa, which could reinforce protections for free speech and public engagement. It would send a clear message that courts will not be used as instruments of harassment or censorship.
It’s worth noting that Choritz’s SLAPP allegations and substantive defences have not yet been determined by the court.
Background
According to Mendelsohn, the video and article portrayed him, among other things, as a supporter of genocide, an Islamophobe and a racist. However, Choritz denies that the publications were defamatory.
The video and article follow a debate at UCT around Israel, Zionism, antisemitism, Gaza and UCT’s decision to award Dr Imtiaz Sooliman an honorary doctorate. Mendelsohn had publicly opposed the honorary doctorate and has separately challenged UCT Council resolutions concerning the Middle East.
Choritz said her publications (TikTok and SubStack) formed part of political and social debate and advances three defences, namely protected/fair comment where the contested statements were political opinion, value judgments, rhetoric and/or hyperbole; truth and public interest, where statements are found to be factual rather than opinion; and no intention to injure as she denies publishing either piece with the intention of unlawfully harming Mendelsohn.
IOL
Yasmine Jacobs
iol.co.za