MAJIEDT J from participating in public affairs.45 There are elaborate procedures in most of these foreign jurisdictions, an aspect to be discussed in some detail presently. But can SLAPP suits be accommodated under our common law abuse of process? Abuse of process in our law [46] The defendants plead the legal conclusion to their special defences that the plaintiff’s conduct in bringing the defamation— “(a) is an abuse of process; (b) amounts to the use of court process to achieve an improper end and to use litigation to cause the defendants financial and/or other prejudice in order to silence them; and/or (c) violates the right to freedom of expression entrenched in section 16 of the Constitution.” [47] Distilled to its essence, the defence is really one of abuse of process. The additional allegations pleaded regarding the improper use of litigation and a violation of the right of freedom of expression appear to be merely in support of this legal conclusion, as opposed to being further self-standing grounds. The defendants’ contention is that abuse of process is a stand-alone defence and they rely entirely on the plaintiffs’ ulterior motive for bringing the defamation actions as constituting the abuse. The merits of the plaintiffs’ claims are to be left completely out of the reckoning – their ulterior motive in and of itself amounts to abuse of the process of the court. That is the crux of the defendants’ SLAPP suit defence. [48] The defendants submit that “[t]he existing common law allows and requires courts to consider ulterior motive when assessing whether a litigant has abused court proceedings. The common law also allows for ulterior motive to be determinative of abuse of process in certain circumstances”. They rely on a number of cases to support this submission. Those cases will be examined presently. During oral argument in 45 Pointes above n 2 at para 2. 22