Latest news with #SiphoTshabalala
IOL News
09-05-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
How News24's Twatterbaas Scandal Exposed the Moral Collapse of South African Journalism
By Sipho Tshabalala In any functioning democracy, the media holds an essential mandate, not merely to report, but to serve as a mirror to society, a check on power, and a forum for open discourse. When this role is compromised by selective outrage, double standards, or the manipulation of truth, public trust erodes. The recent exposé by News24 targeting the anonymous X (formerly Twitter) user known as @twatterbaas presents a troubling case of editorial overreach, moral contradiction, and institutional discomfort with dissent. News24's publication did not stop at critique. It exposed the user's full name, home address, family associations, and business details, a practice widely known as 'doxxing'. Presented as an act of investigative journalism, the article arguably crossed a line from public interest into personal targeting. The publication's intent seemed less about engaging with ideas and more about silencing a controversial voice by turning public scrutiny into a tool of pressure and intimidation. When public backlash mounted, assistant editor Pieter du Toit appeared on kykNET to defend the editorial decision. In a televised debate with lawyer Willie Spies, who represents @twatterbaas, du Toit focused on a specific tweet in which the user claimed that 'Black people are breeding themselves into poverty'. The tweet included a demographic graph illustrating the growth of South Africa's black population in contrast to stagnation among other racial groups. Du Toit dismissed the graphic outright: 'There's no source for this. This is fake. This is disinformation.' The dismissal carried weight, as it implied that not only was the content inaccurate, but that it was intentionally manipulative and racially inflammatory. But that's where the scandal deepened. Internet users quickly uncovered that the same graph had in fact been published by News24 itself in a 2017 article titled 'We're running out of whites', authored by Zinhle Maphumulo and Johan Eybers. The data, previously framed within demographic commentary by News24's own editorial team, had now been repackaged by a private citizen and was being publicly condemned by the same institution. This contradiction laid bare a troubling reality: if quoting the graph is racist, then by the publication's own logic, so too is having originally published it. Yet rather than addressing the inconsistency or issuing clarification, News24 quietly removed the graph from the original article, without editorial note or public acknowledgement. The only evidence of its prior existence remained in an archived version retrieved via the Wayback Machine. The deletion, and the silence that followed, raises urgent questions about editorial integrity and transparency. When a media institution erases part of its historical record without explanation, it does not just alter a webpage, it alters the public record. What could have been a moment of self-correction became a demonstration of selective accountability. The Twatterbaas incident is not about defending inflammatory commentary. It is about holding a media house to the standards it claims to enforce. Either the graph is disinformation, and News24 should answer for publishing it — or it is legitimate, in which case their condemnation of @twatterbaas's use of it appears ideologically motivated. What emerges is not a debate over data, but a demonstration of power. News24's decision to expose the user, frame the content as racist, and then quietly delete its own connection to that data speaks to a culture of control rather than consistency. It reflects a media structure less interested in truth than in preserving authority, even at the cost of coherence. And here, the emotional weight becomes necessary. Because beyond the editorial contradictions lies something more unsettling: the willingness to weaponise public morality selectively. When institutional media engages in such tactics, it sends a message, not just to @twatterbaas, but to all dissenting voices, that speech outside sanctioned narratives may be punished, shamed, or erased. What South Africans witnessed was not only the exposure of an anonymous critic, but the exposure of an institution's own discomfort with its contradictions. If the media is to hold others accountable, it must be prepared to do the same within its own walls. The scandal does not lie in a tweet or a graph. It lies in the quiet deletion, the loud condemnation, and the unwillingness to confront the hypocrisy in between. In choosing to erase rather than explain, News24 has undermined not only its own credibility, but the very principles it purports to defend. * Sipho Tshabalala is an independent writer, analyst and political commentator. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
IOL News
22-04-2025
- Business
- IOL News
How Banks Use 'Reputational Risk' to Hide Corruption
By Sipho Tshabalala There's no need for sugarcoating here. South Africa is not simply dealing with unethical banking behaviour. We are dealing with a cartel, a network of financial institutions that hide behind legal jargon and lofty phrases like "reputational risk" while reinforcing racial, economic, and political gatekeeping. It is no longer speculation. It is a fact. South Africa's major banks have perfected the art of selective enforcement, turning a blind eye to real, proven corruption while ruthlessly targeting those who don't fit the mould of corporate comfort or white monopoly capital. Need proof? Let's start with McKinsey. The consulting giant admitted to facilitating corrupt contracts with Eskom and Transnet. They didn't just whisper through the halls of state capture - they walked in, briefcases open, collecting billions. After public pressure, McKinsey agreed to pay back over R2 billion. Yet, not one bank has closed their accounts. Then there's Angelo Agrizzi of Bosasa, facing a R1.8 billion fraud and corruption case. His revelations exposed a tangled web of bribes and backdoor deals. Still, no bank saw fit to declare him a reputational risk. No urgent closures. No moral panic. Now, contrast that with what happened to Sekunjalo. No fraud. No conviction. No state capture payout. Just an inconvenient identity: black, independent, and unapologetic. The banks needed no court ruling, no documented wrongdoing. Just enough smoke to justify their fire. This is the double standard at the heart of our financial system. It is not driven by ethics. It is driven by economics, politics, and race. Consider Lancaster Group's deal with Steinhoff. R11.6 billion of public money funnelled through a middleman. A loan never serviced. A B-BBEE trust was never established. An underwriting fee paid without board approval. A PIC board member approving a deal for a company he also served. If "reputational risk" had integrity, Lancaster and Steinhoff would have been blacklisted years ago. Instead, they kept their accounts. Open. Safe. Unbothered. At the centre of this pattern stands Nedbank – a bank entangled in a mess of its own making. From its historical ties to apartheid finance to recent allegations of collusion in interest rate swap corruption with state entities like Transnet, Nedbank has worn scandals like cologne. And yet, the Reserve Bank hasn't moved. The regulators haven't spoken. The courts haven't challenged. When the rot rises from the boardrooms of the powerful, the silence is deafening. Banks have transformed "reputational risk" into a weapon. Not a shield. Not a safeguard. A weapon, deployed against those who challenge them, bypass their influence, or threaten the existing economic hierarchy. It is a phrase so vague, it can mean anything. And that is the danger. It gives them absolute discretion. No oversight. No burden of proof. Just vibes and a verdict. This is not financial regulation. This is economic repression. The hypocrisy is staggering. It is not that banks are incapable of acting. It is that they choose who to act against. The rules are not universal. They are subjective, shifting with colour, class, and convenience. When white-run companies collapse in scandal, the response is measured, cautious, and understanding. When black-owned firms rise in defiance of corporate gatekeeping, the response is swift, punitive, and final. We must ask ourselves: who watches the bankers? Who audits the auditors? If those entrusted with economic stewardship are the very agents of exclusion, then we are not living in a democracy. We are living under a regime of corporate capture, where wealth determines innocence, and power decides access. Sekunjalo is merely the latest example, not the only one. And unless the public demands clarity, accountability, and legislative reform, they won't be the last. Today, it's Sekunjalo. Tomorrow, it could be any black business that refuses to bow. The time has come to strip banks of the unchecked power to declare people unworthy of participation in the economy. We need legislation that defines reputational risk, enforces transparency, and holds banks accountable for weaponising their position. If not, we will continue to live in a country where the real looters bank freely, while those building a future get locked out. This isn't just about Sekunjalo. It's about a system. One that protects the corrupt, rewards the powerful, and punishes the audacious. It's time to call it what it is. And it's time to fight back. * Sipho Tshabalala is an independent writer, commentator and analyst. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
