Publication: Business Day Date: 2004-12-01 Reporter: Paul Setsetse Reporter:

SABC Stands By Trial Coverage

 

Publication 

Business Day

Date 2004-12-01

Reporter

Paul Setsetse

Web Link

www.bday.co.za

 

The article, Press tries and deposes Zuma (November 19), by Dominic Ntsele, Schabir Shaik's spokesman, raises important points about the media's role and responsibility in court reporting, especially in high-profile cases such as the fraud and corruption trial in the Durban High Court.

But he does his cause a disservice by making false allegations about instructions given to South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC ) TV reporter Renee Horne.

Both SABC journalists who shared coffee with Ntsele disagree with his description of the coffee corner recess meeting, and have submitted affidavits to this effect.

This throws into question where Ntsele received his information about an SMS instructing journalists not to refer to Jacob Zuma as the deputy president.

The SABC archives are open to the public and the most cursory examination of our television coverage of the trial will show that our reports have always made it clear that the deputy president has not been charged, and is not on trial, in this case. In reports on the trial and other items mentioning the deputy president, our reporters always reference his position.

SABC TV political editor Vuyo Mvoko did issue an instruction to Horne regarding the way in which she approached the question of Zuma's position in government. He indicated that news reports should make it clear that Zuma was KwaZulu-Natal MEC for economic affairs at the time of the events on which the Shaik charges are based *1. This instruction was issued in the interests of balanced reporting and accountability.

The SABC news division does not as alleged by Ntsele operate on the basis of "from above".

As mandated by the Broadcast Act, there are clear lines of editorial accountability and we operate in a transparent manner.

Any journalist has the right to discuss a decision affecting their editorial integrity with their line manager.

The SABC shares Ntsele's concerns about the way some media houses have dealt with the Shaik court case, and we have tried to be as scrupulous as possible.

Paul Setsetse, GM Communications, South African Broadcasting Corporation

With acknowledgement to Paul Setsetse and Business Day.

 

*1 Mr Seretse does himself and his employer, the government-owned SABC, a massive disserve by making false assertions.

All three counts, Count 1 Corruption, Count 2 Fraud, alternatively Tax Evasion and Count 3 Bribery were alleged by the State to have been perpetrated during the period where Jacob Zuma was deputy president of the Republic of South Africa, a position he assumed during June 1999.

Refer :

The Indictment

The State alleges that the accused are guilty of the following crimes :

Count 1

Now therefore the accused are guilty of the crime of corruption in contravention of section 1(1)(a) of the Corruption Act, No 94 of 1992 in that during the period 1 October 1995 to 30 September 2002 and at or near Durban in the district of Durban, the accused unlawfully and corruptly gave the abovementioned schedule benefits, which were not legally due, to Zuma.....

Count 2

in terms of section 156 of Act 51 of 1977, only against accused 1 to 10)

And therefore the accused are guilty of the crime of fraud in that during or about the period February 1999 to early 2000 and at or near Durban in the district of Durban, the accused unlawfully and with the intent to defraud, falsely and to the prejudice, either real or potential, of the shareholders and/or directors and/or accountants and/or creditors of the corporate accused 2 to 10 and/or of the Nkobi group, and/or the Receiver of Revenue, and/or the South African Revenue Service......

Count 3

And therefore the accused are guilty of the crime of corruption in contravention of section 1(1)(a)(i) of the Corruption Act, No 94 of 1992 in that during the period 30 September 1999 to 2001 and at or near Durban in the district of Durban, the accused unlawfully and corruptly agreed and/or offered to give and/or gave the abovementioned amounts of R500 000 annually, as described in the preamble, which were not legally due, to Zuma.....

Indeed, the infamous meeting(s) of 10/11 March 2000 where Shaik has now admitted he met with Zuma (although denied under formal oath by Zuma) and Thetard, where the former gave an encoded declaration to the latter (and pre-arranged by the latter) for a donation of 500 kZAR (that is R500 000) per year until ADS starts paying dividends, occurred well into the encumbent's tenure as deputy president of the Republic of South Africa.