Update April 2021 INDEPENDENT PANEL REPORT Inquiry into Media Ethics and Credibility by: Judge (retired) Kathleen Satchwell Nikiwe Bikitsha Rich Mkhondo Commissioned by The South African National Editors’ Forum Updated April 2021 INDEPENDENT PANEL REPORT Inquiry into Media Ethics and Credibility by: Judge (retired) Kathleen Satchwell, Nikiwe Bikitsha, Rich Mkhondo Commissioned by the South African National Editors’ Forum with the support of The RAITH Foundation; the Social Justice Initiative; and ABSA Bank Editing and proofreading: Gwen Ansell/Fiona Lloyd Administrative support: South African National Editors’ Forum Layout and design: Judy Seidman First published January 2021; updated February 2021; updated April 2021 Independent Panel Report Inquiry into Media Ethics and Credibility Commissioned by the South African National Editors’ Forum is licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License). ERRATA AND SUBMISSIONS TO PANELISTS ERRATUM Ms Pearlie Joubert The use of quotation marks around the word friendship [“friendship”] in paragraph 8.9 of the Report has mischaracterized the professional association of Ms Pearlie Joubert with Mr Johan van Loggerenberg. The Panel wishes to express its regrets to Ms Joubert. This paragraph has now been corrected. The Panel notes that Ms Joubert resigned from the Sunday Times in part because she did not want to be associated with the narrative being pursued by that publication. Mail & Guardian A complaint has been received from the Acting editor-in chief of the Mail & Guardian (M&G) against SANEF, as publishers of the SANEF Report, and the authors of the Report in relation to paragraph 4.62 of the Report which, summarized by the complainant, is understood to be “a claim that the political editor of the Mail & Guardian at the time wrote favourable stories out of self-interest. There is also the implication that the M&G did nothing about this until another publication published a story about the issue.” Most seriously there is a complaint that the claims in this paragraph 4.62 of the Report were not tested by a right of reply being given to the M&G. It is correct that the Panel did not approach the Mail & Guardian with the information made available to the Inquiry and offer the Mail & Guardian an opportunity to respond with its knowledge of and understanding of the issues dealt with in paragraph 4.62 of the Report. This failure to offer a right of reply to the Mail & Guardian is an egregious failure of fairness and ethical practice in any profession and most particularly in the case of an inquiry purporting to examine ethics in the media practice which includes the right of reply to be offered to subjects of journalism. There can be no excuse for such failure. That the Report was written during the ‘lockdown’ occasioned by the Covid19 pandemic and under logistical constraints, some of which are set out in the Report, cannot justify such a glaring lapse in conscientious and objective preparation. This failure cannot be laid at the door of SANEF which may be the initiator and publisher of the Report but bears no responsibility for the content. The Panel is solely responsible for the Report and the content thereof and the Panel tenders its unresserved apology to the Mail & Guardian. The Mail & Guardian has responded to the substance of paragraph 4.62 as follows: “The M&G suspended Mr Letsoalo after coming into possession of the draft of an investigation into tenders awarded by the Passenger Rail Authority of South Africa (PRASA). This investigation, done by Werksmans Attorneys, had at that point in 2018 not been formally released. When questions were first raised in 2016, then editor Verashni Pillay, concluded that Mr Letsoalo was not in breach of the M&G editorial code in that he disclosed the dealings that underpinned the allegations against him. To be clear, after an extensive interrogation of his work over a number of years, there was no evidence that his prior business dealings with PRASA had in any way influenced the reporting on the utility. Mr Letsoalo was however, told to not report on PRASA, or commission any articles on the utility, because of his wife’s continuing involvement with the utility. Given the seriousness of the subsequent Werksmans report, although it raised no new facts, Mr Letsoalo was suspended to give time for an independent investigation. This is in keeping with the M&Gs desire to hold ethical journalism to the core of what it does. As such, the claim that “on publication of this story in Daily Maverick” Mr Letsoalo was suspended is categorically wrong. As is any insinuation that this is what happened. When the DM first approached the M&G with questions, we noted that the issue had been dealt with before. We were also not sure of the veracity of the questions, given that they came from a private gmail account and in the name of someone unknown in this industry. We were as yet unaware of the finalized Werksmans report. This was then leaked to the M&G. it was on receipt of this that a suspension was instituted. All of this happened before the DM article was published.” The Panel’s response: The Panel notes the publication in the Mail & Guardian of 30 October 2018 under the headline “Mail & Guardian suspends political editor” of an article reporting on the results of the investigation conducted by Werksmans into the tender awarded to a joint venture that included a company of which Letsoalo was managing director. Werksmans concluded that such tender should not have been granted and also noted that Letsoalo had commissioned an article regarding PRASA. An investigation conducted by the then editor of the Mail & Guardian, Verashni Pillay, had found that Letsoalo had declared his business interests and was therefore not in breach of the editorial code. The Panel further notes the publication in the Daily Maverick on 31 October 2018 of an article headed “The Mail & Guardian has launched a fresh investigation into allegations of unethical behaviour by one of its senior journalists” which refers stated that there was evidence suggesting that Letsoalo was “not telling the whole truth when he claimed that he disclosed his business interests during the period 2010 to 2012” and reported that the current editor-in-chief Khadija Patel had ordered an independent investigation into the matter pending the outcome of which Letsoalo was suspended. The earlier investigation conducted by Pillay and Tromp had taken place after Werksmans attorneys had informed the Mail & Guardian that Letsoalo had been managing director of a company involved in a joint venture in what had been found by Werksmans to have been an irregularly awarded tender. Pillay informed Daily Maverick that the “we were concerned that PRASA and Werksmans were trying to unduly influence our newsroom and prevent reporting on the costs of the investigation”. Pillay confirmed that subsequent to her and Tromp’s investigation Lestoalo was “asked to no longer write about PRASA or commission any work from staff or freelancers regarding the organization.” On 3rd December 2018 a ruling by the Press Council, reported as Matuma Letsoalo vs Daily Maverick, referred to complaints laid by Letsoalo arising from the article of 31 October by reason of the ongoing investigation of Letsoalo. These complaints were dismissed solely by reason of the ongoing investigation which was now ordered by the new editor-in-chief, Khadija Patel. On 12 December 2018, News24.com headlined an article “M&G editor sacked for breaching code of ethics” which stated that the Mail & Guardian confirmed that Letsoalo’s employment had been terminated. The online platform of the Mail & Guardian had reported that “the termination followed an independent investigation done into allegations of a conflict of interest. The M&G followed the recommendations of the investigator, by instituting a disciplinary hearing during which Letsoalo had legal representation”. Based on the reportage of the Mail & Guardian itself and the quotations from its own former editor, Verashni Pillay, the Panel has no basis upon which it could correct paragraph 4.62 in the SANEF Report which summarises all the above events. Once again, the Panel apologises to the Mail & Guardian for failure to approach the Mail & Guardian for its version of the story which is now set out in full. Please see the full complaint from the Mail & Guardian here. SUBMISSIONS TO PANELISTS Mr Johan van Loggerenberg The Panel has received a detailed series of complaints dated 19 January 2021 from Mr Johann van Loggerenberg. These concern the chronology and nomenclature of the High Risk Investigations Unit; the dating and import of reports on the so-called ‘rogue unit’ in both City Press and the Sunday Times; the findings of the ‘Khanyane panel’; the possible genesis of the Sunday Times stories; and the editorial role of Rob Rose. The full text of Mr van Loggerenberg’s submission may be consulted at https://sanef.org.za/wp- content/uploads/2021/02/Johann-van-Loggerenberg-3.pdf Mr Paul O’ Sullivan The Panel has received a detailed series of complaints from Mr Paul O’Sullivan dated 26 January 2021. These concern his interactions with the Panel and the account of these presented in the Report; his relationships with Afriforum and the SAPS; his professional status and that of his organization. The full text of Mr O’Sullivan’s submission , together with the documentation he attached, may be consulted at https:// sanef.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Paul-OSullivan-1.pdf and https://sanef.org.za/wp-content/ uploads/2021/02/Paul-OSullivan-2.pdf Dr Iqbal Surve The Panel has received a complaint from Dr I.