Latest news with #amaBhungane
Daily Maverick
6 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
IDT mistrust (Part One) — How Minister Zikalala and his ‘comrade chair' nixed probes into CEO Malaka
In 2023 and 2024, allegations of procurement irregularities against beleaguered IDT chief executive Tebogo Malaka were swept under the carpet by the then IDT chair Kwazi Mshengu and the then minister Sihle Zikalala. These interventions included quashing a forensic probe facilitated by the National Treasury and whitewashing an audit by Zikalala's department. The evidence suggests a parallel effort to stymie investigations into Malaka, clearing the way for her to be elevated from acting to permanent chief executive. Both men deny the accusation. Documents obtained by amaBhungane suggest that former public works and infrastructure minister Sihle Zikalala and his close comrade, the then Independent Development Trust (IDT) chair, advocate Kwazi Mshengu, mounted parallel efforts to shield the parastatal's chief executive from investigations into a R45-million lease scandal. Internal communications, board minutes and draft reports show Zikalala and Mshengu clearing the way for Tebogo Malaka's elevation from acting to permanent chief executive last year despite mounting evidence of impropriety on her part. Allegations include that Malaka concluded a lease agreement with politically exposed Moepathutse Property Investments behind the IDT board of trustees' backs and beyond her delegation of authority. The lease, for a building adjacent to a nature reserve in Irene, Centurion, was intended to provide the IDT with new headquarters, but the IDT never took occupation, leading Moepathutse to sue for R14-million in damages. Moepathutse is directed by former politician Thaba Mufamadi and his relative Vhonani Mufamadi — the brothers of President Cyril Ramaphosa's national security adviser, Sydney Mufamadi. Moepathutse has denied wrongdoing or that it had a relationship with Malaka. Part One of this series shows how, soon after taking over as IDT chair, Mshengu led his board in quashing a forensic investigation facilitated by the National Treasury, asking Zikalala to have his Department of Public Works and Infrastructure conduct a probe instead. Part Two will examine how Zikalala tasked the department's internal auditors — but not to probe allegations against Malaka. The Treasury confirmed to amaBhungane that its investigations were 'already at an advanced stage' when Mshengu pulled the plug, but that Mshengu declined to be apprised of findings so far. Zikalala was minister at the time but has been deputy to the DA's Dean Macpherson since the formation of the Government of National Unity last July. Macpherson removed Mshengu from the board this year. The IDT is a multibillion-rand implementing agency of the department, responsible for social infrastructure like schools and clinics. Mshengu and Zikalala have denied any correlation between their actions, which they maintain were justified. Malaka, who is fighting to retain her position in the face of amaBhungane and Daily Maverick exposés, did not respond to detailed questions regarding the allegations against her. Stop-start tender To casual observers, it may appear as though Malaka's troubles began when Macpherson took over as minister, when in fact they started two years ago under a previous IDT board. The controversy is rooted in an early 2022 board resolution to sell the IDT's existing headquarters at an unassuming office park in Pretoria East and procure leased premises instead. Malaka was already acting chief executive at this point. The tender process was seemingly derailed in May that year when Malaka received a protected disclosure from the head of security, Wilhelm Meyer. An IDT affidavit filed as part of subsequent litigation with Moepathutse alleges that during an impromptu visit to Moepathutse's property, Meyer witnessed the chair of the bid specification committee arriving in the same car as someone connected to Moepathutse. This raised concerns about an inappropriate relationship. At a subsequent meeting of the bid specification committee, the chair allegedly specified criteria — a canteen, a bicycle shed, showers — that 'surprisingly fit' Moepathutse's property. Meyer's disclosure set off a chain of events still rippling out now. A May 2023 draft report from the board to Zikalala states that Malaka did not voluntarily bring Meyer's disclosure to the board's attention until it demanded answers from her. It also alleges that 'an extensive investigation' Malaka promised Meyer was superficial at best. Nonetheless, the tender was cancelled and a second advert placed in August 2022. Despite the protected disclosure, Moepathutse was recommended as the winning bidder and an unsigned lease agreement provided to the board for approval in January 2023. Board in the dark The board was, however, unaware that Malaka had already signed a letter of award to Moepathutse in November 2022. Moepathutse signed its acceptance on the same day. The rental amounted to R45-million over five years. The board was also unaware that in December 2022, Malaka had signed a lease agreement despite her finance chief warning it was above their delegation of authority and needed board approval. The board knew nothing of this when it was time to give its approval. 'An unsigned lease was provided in the board meeting pack, and no reference at all was made by [Malaka] on the fact that a signed lease existed,' the draft report to Zikalala read. It also recorded Malaka's excuse that she was 'not responsible for compiling the board pack'. The board approved the lease agreement in February 2023, in the absence of the then chair, Zimbini Hill, and despite outstanding concerns. The following month, however, after receiving a whistle-blower report deemed 'highly relevant' to the lease procurement, it rescinded its approval. It also resolved to initiate a two-part forensic investigation: into the lease procurement itself and into HR-related allegations against Malaka and other managers. It was only after this that the board was furnished with the lease Malaka had signed months earlier without authority. It is this signed lease that Moepathutse is using to back its R14-million damages claim against the IDT. Draft board minutes display trustees' dissatisfaction with Malaka: 'The board is concerned at the level of dishonesty as management never disclosed the signed lease of 2 December 2022. The CFO informed the acting CEO in an email on 2 December 2022 that the signed lease was beyond the delegation of the acting CEO and the CFO… The board cannot ignore the actions of management in how the lease matter was handled.' The draft minutes and report cite evidence that Moepathutse marketed the same building at significantly lower rates than the IDT lease. Michael Sutcliffe, an ANC-aligned veteran bureaucrat then on the board, submitted documentation allegedly showing that Moepathutse had advertised an annual rental of R4,459,932 — 43% less than the IDT's first-year commitment of R7,851,178. Moepathutse said in response to amaBhungane's questions that its price was 'the lowest of the six bids received by the IDT in response to the public tender'. The draft report to Zikalala, which was circulated to all board members and sent to Zikalala after minor edits from the trustees, states that the board had agreed on the terms of reference for the proposed forensic investigation and that the minister was briefed in detail. It is understood that the document submitted to Zikalala did not differ materially from the draft seen by amaBhungane. Board 'dysfunctional' The board now faced a dilemma. It wanted to procure a forensic firm to conduct its probe, but felt it could not trust IDT management with the process. Initially, the board considered calling for bids from the department's approved panel of firms, but that panel had expired. Questions also emerged about the board's legal authority to initiate procurement. The board then mandated the company secretary to approach the National Treasury about undertaking the investigation as a neutral third party. The Treasury confirmed it could do so, and the company secretary kick-started the process. The Treasury appointed the law firm ENS to assist. A dispute later arose over whether the board had actually mandated the company secretary to launch the investigation or merely to explore its feasibility. This would form the basis for a reconstituted board to halt the Treasury's investigation, despite records showing that both the board and the minister were briefed on the investigation's timeline and costs in September 2023. Moepathutse lodged its high court claim based on the disputed lease contract that same month. Zikalala subsequently intervened with a 'fact-finding mission', citing governance concerns 'arising out of the complaints raised with my office'. Two sources with knowledge of events say that shortly after the Treasury's investigation commenced in October, Malaka allegedly refused to cooperate. When investigators complained, board chair Hill wrote to Malaka urging her to cooperate. Malaka, in turn, lodged a grievance against Hill. Soon after, Zikalala wrote to board members asking them to justify why they should not be removed 'for failure to implement the mandate of the IDT'. Hill resigned on 8 October and was followed by two more trustees. Defending his intervention to amaBhungane, Zikalala said: 'The board members were not aligned and were clearly divided on many issues, rendering the board dysfunctional. After observing this state of paralysis and that this board was nowhere near fulfilling its fiduciary duties, I wrote to all board members, not just Ms Zimbini Hill… Three board members responded while others resigned.' Hill's resignation paved the way for Mshengu's entry. Zikalala appointed him as a trustee in November 2023, after which the board elected him as its chair. A former KwaZulu-Natal ANC Youth League chair, Mshengu enjoyed Zikalala's trust. When Zikalala became provincial premier in 2019, he appointed Mshengu as his education MEC. They served together until their defeat in the ANC's 2022 provincial elections, where Zikalala had stood for chair on the 'Ankole' slate with Mshengu as his deputy. Mshengu had also served as a board member on Zikalala's charitable trust. 'Protect the board' At his inaugural meeting chairing the IDT board towards the end of November 2023, Mshengu set the tone. According to minutes, he shared 'observations' on the Treasury's investigation, questioning its terms of reference and impartiality. The board then resolved 'to consider taking a decision that would protect the board'; 'that the current forensic investigation should be halted'; and that Zikalala should be asked to have his department investigate Moepathutse's appointment, 'specifically relating to the relationship between' Moepathutse and Malaka. A Treasury spokesperson said in response to amaBhungane's questions that it had received a letter from Mshengu that December, 'instructing the Treasury not to proceed further… 'However, by that point, the National Treasury's investigation was already at an advanced stage. Based on the information collected, evidence obtained from imaged computers, and consultations with relevant officials, the Treasury concluded its investigation.' By that time there were already draft reports and contact had been made with the Hawks. The Treasury appears not to have wanted its and ENS's work to go to waste. According to the Treasury, 'In February 2024, the National Treasury wrote to the board chairperson requesting a meeting to present the findings of the investigation as at the time of termination. The chairperson, however, declined, stating that the board would not accept any investigation reports from the National Treasury, referring to the December letter terminating the Treasury's mandate.' Mshengu defended his actions, telling amaBhungane that when Zikalala and the then deputy minister Bernice Swarts introduced him to the rest of the board, they 'indicated that they had received complaints from Ms Malaka on how the investigation was conducted by National Treasury — which she viewed as having predetermined outcomes. The ministry then requested the board to look into these allegations.' The matter was considered at the next board meeting. 'The trustees who had an advantage of being seized with the matter before my arrival unanimously disavowed that they had agreed to the appointment of National Treasury and the terms of reference. 'According to the trustees, the company secretary was mandated to check if either National Treasury or [the department] can do the investigation and advise the board. The company secretary, however, proceeded to appoint Treasury without reverting to the board and to have the board consider and approve the terms of reference.' Mshengu said the decision to terminate the Treasury's mandate was informed by a 'contamination of the process' and that the investigation 'was never squashed but was referred' to the department. He said his relationship with Zikalala was public knowledge and that he had declared it to the interview panel before his appointment. He had met Malaka for the first time when he became a trustee. Either way, the end of the Treasury investigation proved a lifeline for Malaka. As we explain in Part Two, Zikalala would go on to whitewash the investigation entirely, endorsing Malaka for permanent chief executive on the basis that his inquiry 'found no wrongdoing' against her. It never, in fact, investigated her. In July 2024, on the day Macpherson and other Government of National Unity ministers were taking the oath of office, Mshengu signed off on Malaka's permanent appointment. DM
IOL News
25-05-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Independent Media and the true meaning of press freedom
Independent Media's editor-in-chief Adri Senekal de Wet. Image: Armand Hough/Independent Newspapers CAROLINE James's recent article on amaBhungane's decision to intervene in a legal matter involving Independent Media is a disingenuous attempt to paint herself and her organisation as champions of press freedom. However, it is both ironic and revealing that this apparent act of 'solidarity' arrives wrapped in disdain, accusations, and a backhanded swipe at Dr Iqbal Survé, the chairman of Independent Media and the Sekunjalo Group. Let me set the record straight. Dr Survé is a visionary South African entrepreneur, a trained medical doctor, and a global philanthropist who has received multiple honorary doctorates and has served in key leadership roles across international economic and media platforms. He has served as chairperson of the BRICS Business Council (South Africa), represented the country at the World Economic Forum in Davos, and remains deeply committed to building inclusive economic models that empower the majority of South Africans, not a select few. Crucially, Dr Survé has dedicated a significant portion of his life to defending and advancing the principles of free speech and media plurality, often at great personal and financial cost. Under his leadership, Independent Media became one of the very few large-scale, black-owned media houses in the country, committed to transforming the narrative landscape of South Africa. It is precisely because of this transformation that powerful interest groups have waged a relentless campaign to discredit him and the company he leads. Independent Media has published stories other outlets wouldn't touch — stories about state capture, corporate corruption, banking collusion, land restitution failures, and political hypocrisy. We have given voice to the marginalised, to families of unrest victims, whistleblowers, and ordinary citizens. We have upheld the spirit and substance of media freedom as enshrined in Section 16 of our Constitution: not just the right to speak, but the right to know. Which brings us to the real meaning of World Press Freedom Day, a day meant to honour the fundamental human right to free expression and to recognise the press as a pillar of democracy, not a tool of elite manipulation. Sadly, this spirit is being diluted by actors like amaBhungane, who present themselves as independent while evading full transparency about their funding and motives. James fails to mention, for instance, the growing concern about amaBhungane's financial ties to international donors and wealthy local benefactors, including links to Oppenheimer-aligned initiatives. She does not disclose that figures like William Gumede allegedly received funding from these circles, raising serious questions about ownership influence and editorial bias. For an organisation that preaches transparency, this omission is glaring. It is also worth reminding the public that one of amaBhungane's co-founders, Sam Sole, has previously been accused of Stratcom-style tactics, misusing investigative journalism to serve political interests and destabilise black-owned media entities. These are not idle accusations. They come from years of observation, experience, and first-hand exposure to how narrative warfare is conducted in South Africa. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ In that context, James's faux indignation that Independent Media has called out amaBhungane as 'racist' or 'Stratcom' is not only misplaced, it's revealing. It reflects a belief that their organisation is beyond scrutiny, above criticism, and immune to being held to the same standards they so eagerly apply to others. Let us be crystal clear: press freedom does not belong to a handful of NGOs funded from abroad. It belongs to the people of South Africa. It belongs to the journalists on the ground, the community papers, the investigative reporters who work without donor stipends or overseas backers. And yes, it belongs to media houses like Independent, which face daily legal and financial harassment for simply doing their job. The case involving ARTsolar is not an isolated incident; it is part of a broader trend where powerful interests use the courts to silence journalists. We reject any form of censorship, whether it comes from corporate boardrooms or courtrooms. But we also reject opportunists who swoop in at the last minute to frame themselves as heroes while undermining the very institutions they claim to defend. At Independent Media, we are committed to protecting the rights of our journalists, defending the integrity of our platforms, and ensuring that media freedom is not reduced to a slogan used to justify elitist capture of the narrative. We are here to serve the public interest. That includes challenging the very actors who claim to speak for the public while operating in secret. We call on amaBhungane to disclose all their sources of funding, all potential conflicts of interest, and the real motivations behind their targeted interventions. We also remind them that media solidarity begins with mutual respect, not condescension, not character assassination, and certainly not selective advocacy. As editor-in-chief, I am proud to stand alongside Dr Survé and the editors and journalists across our titles. We are not perfect, but we are principled. And we will continue to tell the stories that matter, no matter how uncomfortable they are for those who believe they should control the narrative. On this Press Freedom Day, let us reaffirm what real media independence looks like: it looks like accountability, it looks like truth-telling, and it looks like ownership that reflects the soul of the country, not the wallets of a privileged few. * Adri Senekal de Wet is the editor-in-chief of Independent Media.
Daily Maverick
16-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Suspected crime boss Stanfield's wife, Nicole Johnson, spends R5m on Sea Point flat while in prison
Nicole Johnson, the wife of suspected organised crime boss Ralph Stanfield and herself accused of racketeering and helping run a violent criminal enterprise, bought an unbonded R5-million flat on the Atlantic Seaboard from a renowned Cape Town property developer. The transaction raises questions about the extent to which property deals remain vulnerable to money laundering, especially in a time of increased focus on estate agents and lawyers meeting anti-money laundering obligations. Investigations by amaBhungane have highlighted a legal loophole whereby developers who make direct sales without using estate agents as intermediaries seemingly do not have to be registered with the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) as accountable institutions. These developers, therefore, have no obligation to perform any due diligence on clients, although they do still need to report transactions they have reason to believe are suspicious. While the criminal reputation of Stanfield and Johnson precedes them, neither the conveyancers, Smith Tabata Buchanan Boyes (STBB), nor the property developer, Blok, which was directly involved in last year's sale, appear to have been put off by the couple's notoriety or the fact that Johnson purchased her Sea Point flat while in prison awaiting trial. Johnson and Stanfield, who have been charged under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, have been held in Cape Town's Pollsmoor and Brandvlei prisons respectively since their highly publicised arrest in September 2023. They were arrested at their multimillion-rand Constantia home in Cape Town on suspicion of running a criminal enterprise, which has allegedly ensnared several senior local government officials. Collectively they face more than 100 criminal charges, including racketeering, money laundering, corruption, fraud, theft, extortion, murder, attempted murder and the illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. Some of the charges relate to their alleged involvement in a R1-billion social housing development tender fraud scheme for the construction of homes in some of Cape Town's poorest communities. Johnson runs numerous companies, including Glomix House Brokers (GHB), which the couple allegedly used to secure contracts linked to the tender. In March 2024 the National Treasury blacklisted GHB from doing business with the government for 10 years. The blacklisting was loudly trumpeted by the City of Cape Town as a major success in its fightback campaign against the construction mafia, which for years has laid siege to its infrastructure development projects. AmaBhungane has learnt that six months later, on 2 September 2024, Johnson bought a two-bedroom apartment in Sea Point from Blok, one of Cape Town's most renowned urban renewal property developers. She was able to do this while sitting in Pollsmoor as a prisoner awaiting trial. While amaBhungane is not suggesting that STBB or Blok failed to comply with any Financial Intelligence Centre Act (Fica) money-laundering reporting obligations, or that the money Johnson used to buy her flat was from the proceeds of crime, the sale shines a light on estate agents' – and potentially property developers' – compliance levels with laws to combat money laundering and terrorism financing, as well as the current difficulties the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) faces in ensuring such compliance and the gaps in legislation specifically designed to combat these crimes. The source of the money, as well as whether it was paid directly by Johnson from her bank account or via a third party, is unknown. Her lawyer, Luzuko Guma, did not respond to amaBhungane's email and WhatsApp requests for comment. Blok and STBB would not discuss any details of the transaction, citing client confidentiality and FIC secrecy provisions while insisting that they had complied with their obligations. As we'll see, however, what these were in the case of Blok may be somewhat unclear. The sale Since its founding in 2014 by father and son Marco and Jacques van Embden, Blok has become known for its award-winning projects, with the company specialising in high-end compact apartment developments in Cape Town's City Bowl and Sea Point. Of the company's 20 developments, it was its Eighty2 on M apartment building that caught Johnson's eye. According to the company's website, the block on Sea Point's Main Road is an 'apartment hotel… where luxury meets sustainability' and offers 'bold architectural design, energy-efficient living spaces and community-oriented features'. The majority of the apartments in the building are rented out as short-term stays. While the exact details of the transaction through which Johnson purchased her eighth-floor unit facing Lion's Head and Signal Hill are unknown, what amaBhungane has gleaned is that she paid R5,016,000 for the 77m² flat, that the purchase was unbonded and made through a cash transfer, and that the unit was registered in her name on 20 November 2024. Property records show that Johnson bought the unit from Blok's Urban Living 4, which is registered as a separate business entity and which developed the Eighty2 on M apartment building. When developing apartments, Blok appears to register separate business entities. The company's registered estate agency business, Blok Urban Apartment Living (UAL), is responsible for marketing and facilitating the sale of units in the group's different developments. In trying to unpack the transaction and determine whether the financial reporting legislation was complied with, amaBhungane looked at whether Blok is registered with the FIC as an accountable institution. Accountable? Fica compels accountable institutions to carry out in-depth know-your-client analyses, understand the nature of their clients' different business relationships, alert the FIC to any suspicious transactions and, importantly, assess, mitigate and report potential money laundering or terror financing risks their businesses may face from transactions. Compliance is crucial in the government's effort to remove SA from the global Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list. The FATF grey list identifies countries that have deficiencies in their legislative systems that hamper the combating of money laundering and terror financing. SA was placed on the grey list in February 2023 and in February of this year, the National Treasury announced that it aimed to have SA removed from the list by October. One of the biggest stumbling blocks in removing SA from the list is the lack of successful prosecutions of money laundering cases, as well as poor Fica compliance by certain accountable institutions. In April, the FIC complained in a press release that it was struggling to get estate agents and lawyers to comply with all important Fica risk and compliance reporting obligations. The problem is compounded by a gap in the legislation. Under Fica, estate agencies are 'accountable institutions' but property developers who sell units directly to buyers without using estate agents as intermediaries fall outside the current definitions. That gap was partially closed with the repeal of the former Estate Agency Affairs Act and its replacement in February 2022 with the Property Practitioners Act, which includes property developers that perform estate agency activities by selling their developments directly to buyers. Fica, however, still needs to be amended to include the wider definition of 'property practitioners'. Back to Blok This legal blurriness was evident in our attempts to get clarity from Blok as to what extent it had considered – or even recognised – the potential red flags of a cash sale to Johnson, a prisoner awaiting trial. STBB and Blok sidestepped detailed questions, citing Fica non-disclosure provisions and the Protection of Personal Information Act. STBB director Steven Borwick, responding on behalf of Blok, said that 'in the event that our client had incurred an obligation to report an activity associated with Ms Johnson to the FIC, it will [in] any event, be precluded … by the FIC Act from disclosing such a fact to anyone. To do so constitutes a criminal offence …' Questioned on whether Blok had any Fica responsibilities, Borwick said the specific development company, Blok Urban Living 4, was 'not an accountable institution in terms of the FIC Act'. He said STBB is registered with the FIC as an accountable institution and that the company takes its responsibilities seriously. Borwick said Blok's marketing arm, UAL, provided the company with its estate agency services, but it is not clear whether UAL was involved in the Johnson transaction and, initially at least, amaBhungane was not able to get Blok to confirm that UAL was registered with the FIC. A search of the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority website shows that UAL is a registered estate agency. As such, Fica requires, if not Blok as a whole, then at least UAL to be registered as an accountable institution. Eventually Borwick confirmed this, noting: 'I am instructed the entity is registered with FIC, registration took place in approximately 2018. Blok will not comment on business strategy and we cannot disclose details of a specific transaction without all parties' consent. No further emails or calls will be responded to.' When amaBhungane approached the FIC with the same question, the entity threw up a bureaucratic wall, saying that its register of accountable institutions was 'not a public registry'. 'The purpose of the registry … is to facilitate [the] regulation of accountable institution compliance with the FIC Act, including with their reporting obligations, in line with the FIC's mandate. 'As such, the FIC is obliged to maintain [the] confidentiality of the regulatory information that is provided to it. Furthermore, the FIC Act provides for the protection of the confidential information which the FIC holds.' This legally questionable stance, which precludes the public from knowing whether companies are complying with their mandatory responsibility to register, helps no -one – except perhaps people like Johnson. DM
IOL News
11-05-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Hypocrisy Behind Caroline James and amaBhungane's Paternalistic International Press Freedom Day Posturing
By Edmond Phiri On International Press Freedom Day, Caroline James published an article about how investigative journalism platform amaBhungane joined Independent Media to challenge a Durban High Court judgment. However, rather than focusing solely on press freedom issues, James opened her piece with a pointed attack against Independent Media's Chairperson, Dr Iqbal Survé. The article's arrogant, racist and paternalistic undertone was impossible to ignore. James begins by deliberately insulting Dr Survé, stripping him of his title and referring to him by his first name—something the media never does with figures like Koos Bekker or Johan Rupert. 'There are few people who hate us more than Iqbal Survé, the chairperson of Independent Media,' James opens her cynical piece, continuing with: 'So why would we spend the limited resources we have fighting to defend Independent Media in court?' In framing her piece this way, amaBhungane attempts to claim moral superiority and congratulate themselves for their supposed magnanimity. Though presented as a defence of press freedom, the article was less about press freedom and more about amaBhungane's self-congratulation. It also revealed their paternalistic attitude in portraying themselves as a white saviour rescuing a black media house that 'couldn't afford legal fees'. There was little genuine concern for the principle of free expression beyond the PR value of the courtroom contest. AmaBhungane's true motivation becomes clear when James mentions how the Durban judgment contradicted a previous but different court ruling involving businessman Zunaid Moti. 'In 2023, businessman Zunaid Moti sought to gag amaBhungane from reporting on his business and to obtain details of the documents we received from a source,' she writes. When James praises the Johannesburg High Court's 'stirring endorsement of the importance of a free and independent media' in the Moti case, her agenda becomes clear. The 'regressive judgment that threatens media freedom' wasn't just endangering media freedom; it was threatening AmaBhungane's specific victory against Moti. Independent Media was merely a strategic convenience for their purposes. Meanwhile, amaBhungane has remained conspicuously silent when their own journalists have launched scathing attacks against Dr Survé, his publications, and editors. Their sister publication, Daily Maverick, has published vicious propaganda against Independent Media, with cartoonists and columnists hurling countless insults at Survé and his media house. AmaBhungane and Caroline James have remained silent throughout this campaign, apparently seeing no violation of press freedom when media rivals are targeted. Where was James and AmaBhungane's gallant fight for media freedom when banks shut down Independent Media's accounts, hampering their ability to operate and effectively pushing them toward closure? With no allegation of misconduct and no due process observed, this action represented a far graver menace to media freedom. Currently, Independent Media and its holding company continue fighting to keep their bank accounts open, without which they cannot operate or pay their staff and journalists. The arbitrary closure of bank accounts without due process represents a far greater threat to media freedom than the court case amaBhungane has chosen to highlight. When Independent Media's bank accounts were arbitrarily closed, amaBhungane and colleagues seemed to cheer on the development. AmaBhungane's journalist, Dewald van Rensburg, led the charge through sensational headlines like 'Strike three: Is Iqbal Survé finally unbankable?' Where was their commitment to media freedom when an organisation that committed no wrongdoing had its ability to operate shut down without due process? The worst violations of press freedom have actually been perpetrated by amaBhungane itself and its allies in white-owned media. They have invested significant resources in undermining Independent Media's credibility so that it isn't viewed as a legitimate alternative voice. Writers like myself who hold positions contrary to AmaBhungane's face relentless attacks and false accusations of being part of 'Survé's glitchy propaganda machine.' These accusations themselves constitute the real propaganda, designed to delegitimise voices that don't align with theirs. Press freedom demands more than courtroom rhetoric. It's about allowing diverse voices, including those you disagree with. The white mainstream media's dedicated campaign against Independent Media represents one of the most egregious violations of media freedom. AmaBhungane's platitudes ring hollow when they continue to undermine another media house's voice, credibility, and audience reach. When Independent Media writers labelled amaBhungane 'Stratcom,' it wasn't out of hatred but to expose the propaganda campaign James and colleagues waged against Independent Media, which undermines press freedom. AmaBhungane could have better used its 'limited resources' to defend genuine press freedom, rather than exploiting a court case for public relations and propaganda purposes. Caroline James' AmaBhungane article reveals its own hypocrisy. When it truly mattered for them to defend press freedom, they remained silent because it didn't serve their agenda. Their court 'defence of Independent Media' was nothing but cynical self-interest. True press freedom begins with how you treat your fellow media industry outlets, not with self-aggrandising platitudes. * Edmond Phiri is an independent writer, commentator and analyst. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
Daily Maverick
22-04-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Whistle-blowers launch constitutional challenge to solar panel firm's gag order in battle over ‘defamatory allegations'
The whistle-blowers argue that their right to freedom of expression has been violated, as amaBhungane applies to join the case. The three 'whistle-blowers' who were recently gagged by solar panel company ARTsolar from making 'defamatory allegations' that it was importing rather than locally manufacturing its solar panels, have challenged the order on constitutional grounds. The AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism has also applied to join the case. An interim interdict by Durban High Court acting Judge Perlene Bramdhew issued on 26 March barred KwaZulu-Natal businessman and former ARTsolar client Brett Latimer, and former ARTsolar employees Kandace Singh and Shalendra Hansraj, from claiming the company conducts its business unethically and dishonestly. Latimer, Singh and Hansraj contend the order violates their right to freedom of expression, as enshrined in the Constitution, which includes press and other media, 'as well as freedom to receive and impart information and ideas'. In terms of the same order, Independent Media journalist Bongani Hans was also specifically gagged from publishing their allegations. The Industrial Development Corporation (IDC), which provided R90-million funding for ARTsolar's new factory in New Germany, was also mentioned in the interdict as one of the organisations with whom Latimer, Singh and Hansraj were not allowed to communicate. In early April, the IDC launched urgent proceedings against the order, arguing it was hampering its investigation into the allegations. Acting Judge Paul Wallis agreed that the IDC should have been joined in the original proceedings. Wallis ruled that there was 'no absolute right to be protected from being the subject of defamatory allegations' and given the aims and objectives of the IDC, the prohibition was not justified. He amended the order, removing the reference to the IDC. Latimer, Singh and Hansraj have since issued a Rule 16A notice, challenging the constitutionality of the gagging order and opening the door for other interested parties to join the proceedings. (A Rule 16A notice informs the public that a constitutional issue is being raised in a particular court.) The notice, which was issued out of the Durban High Court on 14 April, calls on interested parties to join the proceedings as amicus curiae. AmaBhungane applies to be part of the court case In a letter to lawyers representing all the parties, dated 17 April, attorney Dario Milo has given notice that amaBhungane wants to join the proceedings. Milo, acting for amaBhungane, said that in addition to its journalism, the organisation actively advocates for media freedom and access to information. 'This includes engaging in litigation to challenge laws and practices that undermine the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and access to information. Their many successful legal challenges have helped to shape a legal environment that protects journalists and enables investigative reporting,' he said. Amabhungane, he said, had recently been involved in litigation relating to an attempt to prevent it from reporting on certain business affairs of the Moti Group of companies. In that matter, the interdict granted had been set aside as 'an abuse of process and an unjustifiable prior restraint on media freedom'. Milo said amaBhungane, if admitted as an amicus curiae (friend of the court), would make submissions that orders for prior restraint (gagging orders) constituted one of the most serious infringements on press freedom and were only justified in exceptional cases. They should almost never be granted without affording the journalist concerned a full and fair opportunity to present a defence. The interim order imposed a 'sweeping prohibition' on any defamatory statements or implications about ARTsolar's business practices, regardless of whether they may be justified. 'This is overbroad and deprives the public of information and ideas which may well be in the public interest,' Milo said. Even where a journalist did not oppose an application for prior restraint, a court should not treat the matter as unopposed as the right to freedom of the press consists not only of the freedom of a journalist to speak, but also the freedom of the general public to know. The parties have until 22 April to consent in writing to amaBhungane being admitted as an amicus curiae.
