MAJIEDT J SLAPP suits. CALS adopted the stance that, considering the nature of SLAPP suits (with reference to our jurisprudence and comparative foreign jurisprudence) against the scope of abuse of process, this type of lawsuit differs from abuse of process and ought not to be conflated with our common law of abuse of process. It is CALS’s considered view that neither the current process of dealing with abuse of process, nor the elevation of ulterior motive within the common law abuse of process test is sufficient to deal with SLAPP suits. This Court is indebted to CALS for its helpful submissions. [5] The Southern Africa Human Rights Defenders Network (SAHRDN) was admitted as second amicus curiae. The SAHRDN is a non-profit sub-regional network of human rights organisations from Southern Africa. It was established as a strategic response to the shrinking civic space and increased systematic attacks on civil society and human rights defenders across Southern Africa. It contributes to the respect and recognition of human rights defenders as legitimate actors and agents of social change with universally recognised and guaranteed constitutional rights. Since 2013, the SAHRDN has operated with close support from a steering committee with members consisting of the International Commission of Jurists, the Southern Africa Litigation Centre and Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights. The SAHRDN’s written and oral submissions centered on international law with the aim of ensuring that the broader context of international law is taken into account by this Court. In particular, they sought to ensure that the Court considered international law principles that promote the ability of human rights defenders to participate in public interest issues that may involve litigation. Their submissions were helpful to the Court for which we are indebted. [6] The three defamation actions emanate from various allegedly defamatory statements made by the environmentalists. The claims in the actions total in excess of R14 000 000. In response to each of the defamation actions, the defendants raised two special pleas, both of which elicited exceptions from the plaintiffs. [7] The first special plea – the SLAPP special plea – was that the actions were brought for the ulterior purpose of discouraging, censoring, intimidating, and silencing 5