A week is a long time in politics, it is said, and late June already feels like ancient history.
It was a time when Thabo Mbeki — remember him? — was still president and before Judge Chris Nicholson’s judgement changed the political landscape at a stroke. By accepting ANC president Jacob Zuma’s argument that there had been a political hand behind his prosecution, the judge radically changed the terms of public discussion.
Those previously seen as set on raping the judiciary, as expressed in Zapiro’s controversial cartoon, were declared to be victims of interference in the justice system. The Zuma camp found itself catapulted on to the moral high ground.
In the dim and distant past that was June, then ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe told the ANC Youth League that ”the movement is under siege and counter-revolutionary forces are regrouping and this regrouping manifests in a number of ways”.
He enumerated those ways, referring to attempts to form a new opposition party by ”the recycled verkrampte section of the Nationalist Party calling itself the DA [Democratic Alliance] — with the Bantustan parties like the IFP [Inkatha Freedom Party] and the military junta of the old Transkei — there is no clearer message that can come through to all of us that counter-revolutionary forces are at work and they are regrouping”.
And then he turned to the Constitutional Court: ”The smokescreen, comrades, around the so-called [Cape Judge President John] Hlophe case, whose intention is to drag the name of the president of the ANC in the mud. The reality of what we call the Hlophe case in that court — it’s a psychological preparation of society for them to pounce. So when they pounce on our president we should be ready at that point in time. Our revolution is in danger and we must stand and defend it with everything we have.”
In a subsequent interview with the Mail & Guardian Mantashe confirmed his views that ”counter-revolutionary forces are regrouping” and said attacks on Zuma are attacks on the ANC. I have heard the tape of the interview. He is asked: ”Who are you saying will pounce on the movement?”
He responds: ”The Constitutional Court is sitting on a judgement on Zuma. They create a hullabaloo in public, that is preparing the society for their pouncing. That is the issue. They must give the judgement and not prepare us. They must not use Hlophe as a scapegoat to hit at Zuma.”
When the paper published an account of the issue, headlined ”ANC boss accuses judges of conspiracy against Zuma”, however, it drew strong denials. The ANC denied it had said the actions of the judges were counter-revolutionary, only that their actions brought the court into disrepute.
And later Mantashe referred to ”the famous ‘counter-revolutionary judiciary’ misquote”.
It seems to me that the denial is playing with words. There is no doubt of his central accusation, that the Constitutional Court’s complaint against Hlophe is part of a campaign against Zuma, and this was what the paper focused on. That point was not denied either. And the term ”counter-revolutionary” is used several times to describe the pressure the party is under, of which the court’s complaint is a part.
It is interesting, though, that the ANC feels able to deal with public fallout from a statement of this kind by simply denying it.
Mantashe has not complained to the editor and nobody has approached me or the office of the Press Ombudsman, any of which could deal with such an issue. It is well known that the party distrusts these self-regulatory mechanisms, seeing them as ineffectual.
But if it did it would find that a newspaper that really did misquote a senior official would be sharply rapped over the knuckles. It would not be seen as a minor matter. Of course, in this case the party is up against the fact that the M&G has Mantashe’s words on tape.
When M&G editor Ferial Haffajee asked me what the paper could do when its reports were denied in this way, I suggested there was little beyond taping interviews, particularly important ones. If political leaders choose to deny their words rather than weighing them more carefully at the outset, journalists need to be ready to present the evidence.
The internet offers real possibilities. If the audio is of reasonable quality, it would take very little to post the relevant clips on the paper’s website. Then readers could hear the evidence for themselves.
In some cases, newspaper reports have been denied and the denial has come to be seen as more credible than the original claim. But in this case it is the M&G‘s account that has established itself in the public as the true version of events.
Readers aren’t fools.
The Mail & Guardian’s ombud provides an independent view of the paper’s journalism. If you have any complaints you would like addressed, you can contact me at [email protected]. You can also phone the paper on 011 250 7300 and leave a message.