The Cow was just a little confused. "Surely the issue of his dishonesty was still sub judice, given that the corruption trial had yet to resume, at that point?" she asked Gramsci. "Despite all the prima facie evidence Bulelani Ncuka and others claim to have in their possession?"
Gramsci sighed. "Innocent until proven guilty" meant different things to different people, in his experience.
"But on the 'stupidity' allegation, there, surely, there can be no doubt?" the Cow continued. "After all, this is a man who believed a shower could protect him from HIV infection after unprotected sex with someone he knew to be HIV+, someone whose views on rape could most charitably be described as medieval, someone whose idea of good sex was 15 minutes with an inert, resistant partner..."
"But," Gramsci interjected, "Defamation has only tangentially to do with truth, and rather more to do with reputation. If his 'status, good name or reputation' have been adversely affected, he has a case!"
The Cow thought long and hard. "Surely," she asked, tentatively, "his actions rather than the reporting on them would have caused the damage? And an opinion piece - purporting to be opinion, rather than fact - could not be seen as detrimental to his 'status, good name or reputation', given that this would by that stage have been in tatters anyway?"
"Ah yes," chuckled Gramsci, "but it's not as sinister as you think! Dave Bullard asked uMalume to sue him, and uMalume simply obliged. Currying favour with potential voters, I reckon."
The Cow wasn't so sure. Perhaps a little bird had tipped uMalume off that he'd need the money after all, given that the Courts had OK'd the request for the contentious Mauritian documents. The taxpayer might finally get tired of forking out for all those legal fees, after all.