MAJIEDT J arrest and the worst motive does not render an otherwise legal arrest illegal. The same applies to prosecutions.”59 [61] Notwithstanding the clearly distinguishable context of the Zuma judgments, the applicants say that it ought to apply in defamation cases as well. They contend that: “In terms of that dictum, the assessment of whether such actions are unlawful cannot take place without considering the merits of the claim. A party who claims that it has been defamed (on a basis that is not clearly unsustainable) should not be precluded from pursuing an action merely because it has a secondary purpose.” For the reasons that follow, these submissions are only partially sustainable, in my view. While I agree that merits cannot be disregarded in the enquiry of a SLAPP suit defence, the question of motive must also play some role. There is an obvious difference between the legality of an arrest and the law of defamation. The legality of an arrest is an objective question of compliance with the requirements of effecting a lawful arrest. Because the law of defamation weighs up the rights to reputation and the right to freedom of expression, courts are always concerned with defining where that balance is best struck. [62] The applicants also seek some support in the two cases cited in Zuma, namely Tsose60 and Beckenstrater.61 The former concerned an unlawful arrest. Mr Tsose had been arrested on several occasions for contravening section 23 of Proclamation 150 of 1934, in respect of the much hated pass laws which concerned entrance to or presence on certain premises without a permit. Mr Tsose argued that he was arrested so as to prevent him from squatting on the farm. The Appellate Division held that no 59 Zuma above n 56 at para 37. See also Zuma v Democratic Alliance [2017] ZASCA 146; 2018 (1) SA 200 (SCA) at para 88: “Once it is accepted that the motive for a prosecution is irrelevant where the merits of the case against an accused are good, the motive for the timing of an indictment to begin the prosecution must equally be so.” 60 Tsose v Minister of Justice 1951 (3) SA 10 (A). 61 Beckenstrater v Rotther and Theunissen 1955 (1) SA 129 (A). 28