allegations were based and the reliability of their source, as well as the steps taken to verify the information. Ultimately there can be no justification for the publication of untruths and members of the press should not be left with the impression that they have a licence to lower the standards of care which must be observed before the defamatory matter is published in a Newspaper.’ [53] In Independent Newspapers Holdings LTD vs Walled Suliman Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa Case No. 49/2003, the Supreme Court referred to the following:‘False and injurious statements cannot enhance self development. Nor can it be said they lead to healthy participation in the affairs of the community, indeed they are detrimental to the advancement of these values and harmful to the interest of a free and democratic society.’ [54] Having found that the publications by the Defendants comprised untruths, it cannot be said they are in the public interest. That they may have been interesting to the public does not mean that they were in the public interest as was stated in the Independent Newspapers Holdings LTD vs Walleed Suluman (Supra) where the position was expressed as follows at paragraph 42:‘It is true that what is interesting to the public is not necessarily the same as what is in the public interest for the public to know----’ [55] I am therefore of the view that the defence raised by the Defendants cannot avail them. In the circumstances the Defendants cannot avoid liability for the publication of defamatory material of and concerning the Plaintiff.” [41] Having tested the facts and circumstances of this case against the rigours of the guiding principles on the question of reasonableleness, I find myself unable to fault the court a quo in its assessment of the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case. I wholistically adopt the foregoing analogy of the court a quo. 28