"Mr Roberts, you were obsessive... and also haughty, arrogant, self-important, a name-dropper, excessive, outlandish, vindictive, venomous, relentless, evasive, argumentative, opportunistic, unconvincing and untruthful."
These were some of the words used by Acting Judge Leslie Weinkove on Monday in a written judgment in which he lambasted Ronald Suresh Roberts.
He found that the controversial author-biographer had not been defamed in an October 2004 article in the Sunday Times, written by freelance journalist Chris Barron.
And after the Cape High Court judgment, the London-born, Trinidad-raised, Oxford- and Harvard University-educated Roberts is also substantially poorer, having been ordered to pay the costs of this case and a separate but related interdict application.
Barron's profile piece was headed "The Unlikeable Mr Roberts" and flagged "The carpetbagger in the Presidency" - a reference to one-time Sunday Times editor Ken Owen's unflattering description of Roberts as an "egregious West Indian carpetbagger", and to Roberts's current employment working on a book on President Thabo Mbeki.
Complaining that Barron's article was highly defamatory of him, Roberts initially claimed 11 instances of defamation. However, by the time the case came to trial, he had reduced his claim to two aspects:
- References to the circumstances in which he had left Johannesburg law firm Denys Reitz in October 1994; and
- His alleged obsessiveness in pursuing the SABC after it broadcast a discussion programme relating to divorced fathers' rights on June 18 2003, repeated the following day.
Roberts was not in court on Monday to hear Judge Weinkove deliver oral judgment that lasted just one minute. But the judge also handed down a written, 38-page version setting out all his reasons.
In it he said he agreed with the Sunday Times' lawyers that Roberts was a public figure who had been engaged in robust public discourse, "including harsh, venomous criticism of other public figures".
"... and in so doing (he) has set a standard which legitimately constitutes an invitation to be used in judging him."
There was "nothing defamatory" in Barron's paragraphs about the SABC, nor was the word "obsessiveness" in this context defamatory, the judge said.
He also agreed with the Sunday Times' counsel that Roberts's correspondence with the SABC exhibited the hallmark of "an unbalanced, paranoid and obsessed complainant".
"I found the correspondence to show signs of excessive emotionality, and inappropriate and provocative behaviour.
"I found that the plaintiff (Roberts) had an unreasonable expectation of especially favourable treatment and he was contemptuous and impatient with others.
"I found him to be haughty and arrogant, not only in his manner of correspondence but also in his manner in court.
"He displayed a grandiose sense of self-importance... He engaged in name-dropping and he purported to enjoy the patronage of people who occupy high positions in the corridors of power and influence in the new South Africa."
Referring to the argument by Roberts's counsel that Barron's piece had constituted "character assassination", Judge Weinkove commented: "I consider that any harm done to the plaintiff's reputation was self-inflicted."
It was common cause that Barron's remarks about Roberts's leaving the law firm were defamatory, the judge said. However, this statement was also substantially true and the publication thereof was not unlawful.
During his testimony on this aspect, Roberts had been "evasive, argumentative and an opportunistic witness".
"He spent more time trying to score points off the cross-examiner than in answering the questions truthfully. He was unconvincing and his evidence was shown to be contradictory. I agree... that his version was completely discredited."
Judge Weinkove ruled that Roberts would have to pay the costs of two counsel in this case, and also similar costs in respect of an interdict application that he had brought against the Sunday Times to have an online version of Barron's article permanently removed from the newspaper's website.
The judge said the reappearance of the article on the website, contrary to an agreement between Roberts and the newspaper, had been "a bona fide and unintentional error".
Roberts's attorney, Brendon O'Dowd, told journalists that they would study the judgment before deciding whether to appeal.
He said he had only just returned from leave and did not know where his client was.
"He may not even be in the country," he said.