As a journalist, often when something that I do or write makes a politician happy, I ask my one question: what is it that I did wrong? Ussually when a politician reacts with anger or emotion at what I do or write, then I say one thing to myself: I must be doing something right.

A week ago, I had a smile on my face and felt that I had done something right. I had made a politician angry. To be precise, I had made a ex-cabinet minister and ANC heavyweight Mac Maharaj unhappy.

I called Maharaj on the Thursday evening to check some information. I had, and still have, no reason to doubt the veracity of the information I received but I called Maharaj because it is the practice on the newspaper and elsewhere, I'm sure, to corroborate information before publication.

A week ago, Maharaj created a storm in the South African media. At 10.30pm on Thursday Maharaj issued a statement and was subsequently on more than one radio station, making noises about nothing. Yes, nothing. This is how he arrived at nothing.

Some time ago, The Star received, as it does on a daily basis, information a source thought we would be interested in. This particular piece of information was quite interesting. It concerned, among others, Mac Maharaj, his wife Zarina and a businessman, Schabir Shaik.

The information alleged the Maharaj couple could face the wrath of the law because, the information suggested, they had transgressed the law.

We have a particular way of dealing with a situation such as this. The first and most important step is to consult the guidelines in the bible of journalism - our Code of Ethics.

Provisions demand we should, after receiving any information, double-check, verify and triple check information.

I went on such a "journey" in the last couple of weeks. One part of my journey was a call to Maharaj. I told him my sources had informed me his wife was to be charged with tax violation, concealing employment and income.

The charges would emanate from the payment Zarina Maharaj or her company received from Shaik. The Durban businessman had been on the radio 24 hours earlier, confirming he had paid money to Zarina but confidently said there was no link between the payment and contracts his companies received from the department of transport when Mac Maharaj was transport minister.

After I had posed my question, I waited for the answer. Instead I got a grilling from the ANC heavyweight, wanting to know one thing only - the identity of my source. Of course I made it clear there was no way that identity was going to be revealed.

One of the fundamental rules in our code is about the protection of sources.

The media in South Africa was able, to a large extent, to highlight the crimes committed by apartheid foot soldiers because even in the face of detention, torture and death, they protected their sources. A number of our colleagues have spent a lot of time in prison in defence of this sacrosanct principle.

I later told Maharaj that The Star was for legal and ethical reasons delaying the publication of the story I had called him about. He was unhappy and said he would issue a statement.

I told him it was well within his rights to do so.

And that is how Maharaj created history.

It was the first time in the history of this country that so much noise had been caused by a story that had not been published. A story which, in the strict sense of the word, did not exist. It's a work in progress.

One day, when I reach the end of my journey to verify information, I hope to publish the story which has had so much unsolicited marketing from the ex-minister.

Now, there are so many obvious questions and all of them start with a why? Why would Maharaj go off on a tangent like that? Why would he not answer the questions? Why was he more interested in the source of information?

Maharaj, who has a lot of experience, particularly in dealing with the media, knows only too well there was no way I was going to betray my source. And yet he spent half of that Friday creating a sideshow, a smokescreen about "leaked" information, my civic duty to reveal source's identity.

He even went to the police, spending time with the national police commissioner to ask for the "leak" to be investigated. Wow!

Quite clearly, Maharaj was playing political games but we have refused to be drawn into his trap.

What we wanted from him at that stage were straight answers. And it would seem the public deserves even more answers after the publication of information by the Sunday Times last week. My sources tell me that he has not called that publication to demand the unmasking of their sources. He has not told the Sunday Times editor that it was his civic duty to say who is providing them with information.

With acknowledgements to Jovial Rantao and The Star.