1st Floor 83 Central Street Houghton 2198 PO Box 55045 Northlands 2116 Tel: +27 11 483 - 1508 Fax: +27 11 728 - 0145 Direct e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Susan Smuts Managing Editor Sunday Times

Your Ref: Our Ref: Mr. ET Mabuza Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Dear Sirs GARETH CLIFF Your email dated 29 November 2016 refers. We have now had the opportunity to consult with our client, who has instructed us to respond as follows: 1.

Your concessions that the subheading and the second paragraph of the offending article “misrepresented what (he) wrote in his book”, as well as the fact that he did not write that he had cost Ms Marah Louw her job, are most welcomed.

2.

Unfortunately, these concessions do not go far enough. The gist of our complaint is that significant portions of the article were calculated to cast our client in a very negative light.

3.

In particular, and in addition to what is contained in our previous letter, the article was intended to be understood by its readers to convey that our client has deliberately and with ill-intent spiked Ms Louw’s drink at worst and/or knowingly poured and served her the drink in order to achieve certain nefarious and evil consequences, which actually eventuated.

Eric T Mabuza B.Proc (Unin) LLB (Wits)

Page 2

4.

The negative reaction which the article widely attracted, including the threats to boycott his book, were the natural and intended and/or reasonably foreseeable outcomes of your newspaper’s intentional actions.

5.

In the circumstances, your denial that the “errors” were made maliciously and with intent to defame him and/or impair his dignity ring hollow and are accordingly without any foundation.

6.

Your undertaking to correct the “errors” is meaningless if it does not take what is stated above into consideration. It is unlikely to assuage the damage caused to our client. On the contrary, it is most likely to add insult to injury and at best an exercise in futility.

7.

For the avoidance of doubt, we deny that the inaccuracies in the article were the result of any “error”. Any logical reading of the entire article bears this out.

8.

Any acceptable retraction and apology must, in addition to the aforegoing, be carried with the same prominence as the offending article and be reflected on your billboard, where applicable.

9.

Should your so-called correction of the alleged “errors” fall short of taking the above into account and/or complying fully with the demands made in our earlier letter dated 28 November 2016, then our instructions are to take whatever legal steps we deem necessary to protect our client’s violated rights.

Such steps include instituting

proceedings forthwith, and without any further notice to yourselves, in the High Court of South Africa. 10. Kindly revert to us as a matter of urgency but in any event not later than 12.00 noon on Thursday 1 December.

Yours faithfully

MABUZA ATTORNEYS