Monday, October 7, 2013

Who was Neil Agget and what did he die for?

No Fear No Favour No Regrets..........




GUSHWELL BROOKS  SOUTH AFRICA 7 OCTOBER 2013  02:00













The short answer is, he was an anti-Apartheid activist, medical doctor and unionist who was found hanging in his cell in Johannesburg’s John Vorster Square, whilst in security police custody on the 4th February 1982. By GUSHWELL BROOKS.





If you read Beverley Naidoo’s biographical account of Neil’s short life, “Death of an Idealist: In Search of Neil Aggett”, you discover that his brief 28 year life started in Kenya during the Mau Mau uprising, consisted of grand days at Kingswood College in Grahamstown and many a happy day spent with friends in a vegetable garden.
Beyond that, the question highlights one simple fact; many who sacrificed their lives for our liberation have been forgotten and unless you are willing to search deep and far, some of these histories will remain dormant. Worse yet, another question remains, the principles they fought and died for, are these the principles our political leaders carry into the second decade of our democracy?
Three organisations: Doctors Without Borders (Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) South Africa, the University of Witwatersrand Department of Family Medicine, and the Neil Aggett Support Group ensured that the tall, dark-haired and bearded activist will never be forgotten.
This past Friday, October 4, the three joined forces to host a symposium in remembrance of Aggett, entitled “Can health professionals become engines of change in Africa?”
With attendees with the stature of Veteran Advocate George Bizos, former Mandela Cabinet Minister and Founding General Secretary of COSATU, Jay Naidoo, as well as Thembeka Gwagwa, General Secretary of DENOSA (Democratic Nursing Organisation of South Africa), one would have expected a few more students would have skipped a lecture or two and interrogate seasoned activists about how they could make a bigger contribution to society. But despite the lack of numbers, the event delivered on quality.
It seems that being a “professional activist” would have come naturally to a human rights’ lawyer like Bizos, but how does a medical doctor become an activist, that engine of change the symposium sought to find?
Bizos’ account of Steve Biko’s death pointed to how a medical doctor could be the perpetrator of human rights violations - think Wouter Basson - and the contrary of this, like Aggett.
Bizos laid down the gauntlet by referring to the recent Marikana shootings. He said that “legal professionals need medical professionals in a search for the truth.” He asked of the medical students that attended: “Do they want to be doctors like Dr Tucker and Dr Lang, who did not do what their duty was in relation to Steve Biko?” These were the two doctors who insisted that nothing was wrong with Biko, one claiming that he was feigning injury, the other that he was fit enough to embark on a long road trip from Port Elizabeth to a prison hospital in Pretoria, despite the injuries that led to his death.
Bizos said that were it not for medical doctors, forensic evidence that most of the miners at Marikana had been shot in the back and side while retreating, would not have come to light.
Jay Naidoo, in his usual emphatic manner, gave an alternative challenge. He stated that at the centre of it all is the question of social justice. He began by saying that in a world where we know that 18,000 children will die before the end of the day - mostly of preventable causes - what is lacking is political will.
He too, refered to Biko, quoting him: “You can make the choice to fight for justice and you may die in the process, but you will die an honourable death”.
Adressing the young people in this audience Naidoo said “I’m not asking you to die, that is what we fought for, today you have a Constitution that gives you rights.” He went on to say that the disempowerment of youth was their own fault, “because we fought for power”. He conceded that his generation had caused much of the malaise in the world today, but it is up to the youth to rectify this.
But what is the significance of Neil Aggett in all this banter about social justice? Deputy Director JMPD, and Bishop on weekends, Sipho Kubheka, recounted how Aggett had shared his medical knowledge and had taught his comrades how to perform emergency first aid in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s.
Beverley Naidoo told of how Aggett and his father had a strained relationship as a result of the political choices he had made, how Aggett could only see his mother when his father was not around, and how he moved from houses without water to houses without electricity, all in an effort to live remotely enough to work with the apartheid resistance movement. Her literary account tells of a man who abandoned his own life in pursuit of the equity of his fellow South Africans.
Of course MSF and the Neil Aggett Support Group do not expect young medical students to abandon their careers, families and the prospect of living above a living wage. Instead all the speakers bemoaned the current shortcomings and corruption faced by the healthcare system in South Africa.
Thembeka Gwagwa asked a valuable question about how future and current healthcare workers deal with reports of “intimidation faced by those that dared to have their voices heard?”
During the days of AIDS denialism under the Mbeki/Tshabalala-Msimang lunacy, doctors who administered and promoted the use of anti-retroviral drugs were dealt with swiftly. Today, many remain silent as maladministration and corruption has become the crisis in South African healthcare.
Gwgagwa asked a question few in leadership ask: “What would Dr Aggett say of the current status quo?” DM
Photo: Neil Agget


DAILY MAVERICK



COMMENTS BY SONNY

NEIL AGGET TOOK HIS OWN LIFE TO PROTECT THOSE OF HIS COMMUNIST TERRORIST FRIENDS!!

MAY MR APPLE NOW REST IN PEACE.

SOMEONE HERE WANT TO CASH IN ON HIS DEMISE AND FAMILIES GRIEF!

HIS DETRACTORS EXCLUDING STEPHEN WHITEHEAD ARE WITH HIS WHERE EVER HE NOW IS!

BLESS AL;L THEIR SOULS!!

HOW MANY DOCTOR'S ARE NOT AL-QAEDA OR AL-SHABAAB TERRORISTS?

THE WORLD SHOULD BE SAFE FROM  INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM!!

HE WAS JUST ANOTHER CASUALTY OF WAR!~!

How sweet the War was.

1 DECEMBER 2013 SUNDAY TIMES - 

Charge laid against Aggett cop

The sister of an anti-apartheid activist who died in detention in the 1980s hopes that one of his interrogators will finally be brought to book, 32 years later.



South Africa: A conspiracy a day keeps a politician out of jail

No Fear No Favour No Mars Bars raised please.........



Renjeni MUNUSAMY  SOUTH AFRICA   6 OCTOBER 2013  02:02







You have to get up pretty early in the morning to come up with a political conspiracy that will stick and that will get people chanting your name outside a courtroom. Former National Youth Development Agency head Andile Lungisa seems to be a late riser. The conspiracy theory he has concocted to explain his arrest for corruption is so uninspired, even Kenny Kunene and Golden Miles Bhudu might find trouble buying it. So if you’re a political figure who stands a chance of landing in the dock, best you come up with a plausible conspiracy theory that can make you look less of a crook and more of a new struggle hero. By RANJENI MUNUSAMY.



President Jacob Zuma has set the bar very high when it comes to political conspiracy theories. His legal defence in both his corruption and rape trials included was pegged on a state-driven campaign to destroy his political career through malicious prosecution. His political support campaign which carried him to the gates of the presidency cast him as the ultimate political victim, fired as deputy president of the country, humiliated and dragged before the courts, abandoned by the then ANC leadership and hounded by the prosecuting authority. And yet he triumphed, beating the odds to become both the ANC and state president.
It was a comeback like no other and is undoubtedly the most epic saga of post-democracy South Africa. The problem now, though, is that many political leaders who find themselves in trouble seek to emulate the Zuma phenomenon, pedalling conspiracy theories that cast them as victims, hoping to draw sympathy, hordes of supporters and, with any luck, a dismissal of the charges against them.
The trick to a good conspiracy theory is the existence of sufficient evidence to make it sound believable and take root. In Zuma’s case, the prosecuting authority made sufficient blunders throughout to be able to show trace of an agenda. It went far enough for a high court judge to decide there was indeed a political conspiracy against Zuma (albeit that that judgment was later overturned by the Supreme Court of Appeal).
No other conspiracy prior or since has been so solid that it was able to stand up in court. The fact that it did seems to inspire others to follow the same course in their defence.
Former police commissioner Jackie Selebi did not have the same luck. In his corruption and fraud trial, Selebi’s defence included the argument that those who pursued the case against him were themselves corrupt. The argument did not hold water and Selebi was found guilty and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. (He was released on medical parole in July 2012.)
Former ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema has to make his conspiracy argument fly on several fronts. Malema’s line that Zuma had a vendetta against him first arose during his ANC disciplinary case but it bore no weight in the decision to expel him from the party. If anything, his accusations against the president added further fuel to the already significant fire that was bringing to an end his career in the ANC.
Malema kept alive the conspiracy when he was arrested for money laundering in connection with government contracts in Limpopo. In his first few court appearances, Malema was able to draw crowds of supporters who were receptive to his raging about the conspiracy against him. But as time progressed, evidence emerged through the prosecution and the Public Protector’s investigation showing how Malema allegedly benefited from Limpopo transport department tenders awarded to the company On-Point Engineering, which paid money into his Ratanang Family Trust.
But Malema’s conspiracy theory still had traction. His argument was that state departments were being used to strip and humiliate him through the corruption case and the auctioning off of his possessions to settle unpaid tax bills. It did seem rather coincidental that Malema came under scrutiny only after he fell out of favour in the ANC. As Malema awaits trial, he has reinvented himself politically as the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters. He now uses the EFF platform to keep his conspiracy theory afloat and attack those he says plotted against him – primarily Zuma.
But while the conspiracy theory might prop Malema up politically, and keep his supporters fired up, he has to find a way to make the argument stand legally in order to escape conviction and jail time. In order to do this, he will have to show that the prosecution is malicious and politically motivated. This is easier said than done, as while a soapbox requires no evidence, a court does.
Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi does not have to defend himself in a court of law, as he is not charged with any crime, but the internal investigations against him could mark the end of his career in the federation. Vavi is facing a litany of allegations, ranging from financial impropriety to abuse of his powers, and most recently bringing Cosatu into disrepute by having sex at work with a junior employee.
Vavi and his supporters have been adamant that all the investigations against him are driven by people in Cosatu, the ANC and the SACP who are determined to silence or oust Vavi from the federation. Vavi’s argument of a plot against him is helped along by media reports over the past year revealing anger and bitterness against him for being critical of the government. The tensions within Cosatu are no secret, and were it not for his dalliance with his work colleague, Vavi would have maintained the moral high ground and the sympathy of Cosatu members and the public.
But as things stand, Vavi and his supporters have battled to explain the sexual encounter in the context of the conspiracy. Vavi’s desperation to fight off the initial allegation of rape led to him admitting to an affair with the Cosatu staffer, which showed that the sexual encounter was an intentional act on his part. Vavi’s survival in Cosatu now depends on the convening of a special congress and convincing the membership of the federation that there has been a concerted effort to hound him out. Vavi’s opponents, like everyone else, know that most Cosatu members already believe that there is a plot against him, which is why they are averse to the idea of a special Cosatu congress.
The former head of the National Youth Development Agency Andile Lungisa is the latest politician to appear in the dock for corruption. Lungisa, the former deputy president of the ANC Youth League, appeared in the Johannesburg Specialised Commercial Crime Court on Friday for alleged fraud and money-laundering. He appeared with three other people for allegedly accepting and sharing among themselves R2.5 million from the Department of Arts and Culture for the Nelson Mandela Sports Day concert. They allegedly lied that they had arranged for US megastar R Kelly to perform at the concert. They are now out on bail.
But before he was even out of the courthouse, Lungisa was claiming to journalists that his case was politically motivated. He accused the Sports Minister Fikile Mbalula of colluding with the police to have him charged and instructing the prosecution to oppose bail. Lungisa’s conspiracy is that Mbalula has an old vendetta against him as he did not support the sports minister’s bid to become ANC secretary general at the party's elective conference in Mangaung last year.
Mbalula said Lungisa’s antics were laughable and clearly demonstrated calculated actions of an individual who seeks political refuge from his situation.
“His claims that I have an axe to grind with him because he opposed my candidacy as secretary general of the ANC at the Mangaung conference, are at best laughable, and at worst smack of blatant political opportunism. Lungisa is no kingmaker in the ANC and to suggest that he wields such political power to sway the fate of individual leaders is nothing short of delusions of grandeur,” Mbalula said in a statement.
Mbalula said the merits of the case should be tested in court and pledged to testify about Lungisa’s involvement in the R Kelly matter.
Lungisa probably did not expect Mbalula to come back fighting and flatten his conspiracy theory before the weekend was out. He probably believed that people are still fixated on the divides in the ANC from a year ago, and could be convinced that he had some significant role in Gwede Mantashe retaining his position as ANC secretary general. Why else would Mbalula come after Lungisa, of all people?
When questions were raised after the concert as to why R Kelly did not perform, Lungisa offered no explanation. He could not have seriously believed that the matter would just go away and that only Mbalula harbouring an old vendetta would set the authorities on him. Lungisa has the additional problem of having public sentiment against him for the R100 million youth festival he hosted in 2010 as chair of the NYDA, which became known as the “kissing festival”.
But this will probably not stop him from trying to keep the conspiracy theory alive.
In South Africa, conspiracies are apparently the best defence for political survival. The fact that conspiracy theories have collapsed or fizzled out in the past does not seem to discourage people from trying to package new ones to explain their disgraces. As long as there are people willing to believe them, they are bound to keep coming.
South Africa’s political figures are seen as celebrities, which is why people are willing to rally behind them in courts and elevate them even when they fall from grace. It is this hero-worshipping that allows corruption and conspiracy to become two sides of the same coin. It is also what allows corrupt politicians to keep exploiting their positions, as they know there will always be people gullible enough to believe a yarn that will exonerate them. DM
Photo by Reuters.


DAILY MAVERICK


COMMENTS BY SONNY



HOUDINI AND HIS CADRES MUST ALL HAVE "JAMES BOND TICKETS" TO STAY OUT OF PRISON".

NO. 1 SURE MANOEUVRED THE PAWNS WELL!!

JEFF RADEBE MUST BE THE ROOK!!

ONE DAY HOUDINI WILL RUN OUT OF PLAYERS/PIECES ON HIS CHESS BOARD!






Sunday, October 6, 2013

Guptagate: 3rd time for No 1

No fear No Favour No Traitors allowed in SA..........




6 October 2013 6:00












Seven helicopters carrying Gupta family wedding guests were authorised to fly from Air Force Base Waterkloof because the “Indian delegation” was to meet “No 1” in Pilanesberg, North West.
This revelation, contained in a preliminary report by the board of inquiry investigating the controversial landing of the Guptas’ private jet at Waterkloof, follows the news earlier this week that, in an affidavit, Lieutenant General Christine Anderson directly implicated President Jacob Zuma (No 1) as knowing about the landing.
Anderson said that the then chief of state protocol, Bruce Koloane, phoned her on one occasion, saying he had just returned from a meeting with Zuma and that the president wanted to know if everything was on track with the Gupta flight.
It has also emerged that the board of inquiry wants the defence department to lodge a formal complaint against Koloane for “misleading” air force officials to authorise the landing.
» Read the full story in City Press newspaper today.

Friday, October 4, 2013

Schools promised by Zuma have not been built

nO FEAR nO fAVOUR nO SCHOOL JUST NKANDLA.....................



JOHANNESBURG SOUTH AFRICA  4 OCTOBER 2013   12:00


                                                              MBEKI FOETSEK
                                                                        ANC BURNS
                                                      SORRY FOR ALL MY LIES SA
In his State of the Nation address earlier this year, South Africa’s president, Jacob Zuma, promised that a total of 98 new schools would be completed by the end of March 2013. The promise was false.
Researched by Julian Rademeyer
SAFRICA-VOTE-EDUCATION-SCHOOLS
This Africa Check report was originally published in May 2013. As of July 2013, the African National Congress (ANC) continues to claim that 49 “mud schools” were replaced by the department of basic education in 2012. The claim is false. See the update at the end of the report.
In his State of the Nation address earlier this year, South Africa’s president, Jacob Zuma, promised that a total of 98 new schools would be completed by the end of March 2013.
More than forty “mud schools” situated in the impoverished Eastern Cape province would be replaced, he said. (See our earlier report)
Has it happened? Was it a realistic promise to make?

Promise made despite construction backlogs

Huge backlogs in the construction of new schools to replace older “unsafe” ones are meant to be addressed by the “schools infrastructure backlog grant” which was introduced in the 2011/2012 financial year.
The grant was intended to replace 395 “mud schools”, provide water to 1257 schools, sanitation to 868 and electricity to a further 878 schools.
However, according to the department of basic education’s annual performance plan, published on 13 March 2013, to date only “12 unsafe schools have been replaced, 106 schools have been provided with water, 144 schools with sanitation and 118 with electricity”.
As the National Treasury makes clear, there has been massive under-spending of the backlog grant.

Underspent grant funds had been redirected

The Treasury’s 2012 medium-term budget statement noted that: “As a result of slow spending on the schools infrastructure backlogs grant, R7.2 billion has been taken away from this programme over the medium term. These funds will be used to increase the education infrastructure grant to provinces and the community library grant, and to support the construction of new universities in Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape.”
report by Equal Education, an organisation advocating for “quality and equality in South African education”, found that the department of basic education spent “approximately R76 million of the R700 million allocated for the 2011/12 financial year” and “ by the end of the 3rd quarter approximately R400 million of the R2,3-billion allocated for the 2012/13 financial year” had been spent.

Contracts terminated for “non-performance”

The department claimed in its performance plan that: “The rate of delivery of infrastructure has been hampered by structural problems common to all departments especially those in the social sector.”
Basic education spokesman, Panyaza Lesufi, told Africa Check that “experience has proved that it takes a minimum of six months to plan and 12 to 18 months to construct a school. This in the main resulted in low expenditure in the first two years of the programme.”
He said that five contracts affecting the construction of 30 schools were terminated “due to non-performance or liquidation”.

Were schools promised by Zuma built?

In his address, the president claimed that “a total of 98 new schools will have been built by the end of March, of which more than 40 are in the Eastern Cape that are replacing mud schools”.
His promise was made just six weeks before the end of March.
On 12 April 2013, while addressing a community in Libode in the Eastern Cape, the minister for basic education, Angie Motshekga, acknowledged they had failed to meet the commitment: “We pledged to deliver 49 schools to the region by the end of March and we currently stand at 17, with 10 of them from the Libode District alone,” she said.
Explaining this, she added: “The major reason for this shortfall has been the liquidation of one of the contractors who was building 12 schools and the termination of another’s contract. Our implementing agents are in the process of appointing new contractors to complete the outstanding schools, which on average are currently at 85% completion. I’m happy and confident to say that we will soon be announcing the completion of those schools as well.”

Of the 98 promised only “60 schools completed”

According to Lesufi, spokesman for the department of basic education, only 60 of the 98 schools referred to by Zuma have now been completed and 29 of them are in the Eastern Cape.
He said nineteen schools in the Eastern Cape had been “completed and handed over” to communities. Ten other schools had yet to be “handed over”, he said, but were complete and classrooms were being used by pupils.
Echoing minister Motshekga’s claim, Lesufi said that the 49 schools in the province were “85.8%” complete. How that percentage is arrived at was not explained and Lesufi ignored a question requesting information about the locations of the schools making it hard to verify. It would appear the department has not made public a list of the schools and their addresses.
The department’s performance plan states that as a result of the “initial implementation delays…all planned projects will now be completed over a five-year period instead of three years”. A budgeted amount of R2.5 billion has now been “rescheduled” to the 2015/16 financial year.

Conclusion: Zuma’s promise was not kept

It is unclear whether Zuma knowingly made a promise he knew he could not keep. Lesufi this week sidestepped a question about whether Zuma had been provided with incorrect information by the department.
It is clear, however, that Zuma’s claim that 98 schools would have been built by the end of March this year was not true and the department was well aware of that at the time of his speech.
Zuma is of course not the first to make false promises about the schools backlog. Nine years ago, President Thabo Mbeki claimed: “By the end of this year we shall ensure that there is no pupil learning under a tree, mud school or any dangerous conditions that expose pupils and teachers to the elements.” The same promise has been echoed by various ministers, provincial premiers and MECs over the years.
In a recent article in the Sunday Times, Doron Isaacs, the deputy general secretary for Equal Education summarised some of these claims and referred to them as a “tradition of mud school make-believe”. Motshekga may have fallen into the same trap. In April this year she claimed that “we have committed to the eradication of mud schools by the end of 2014/15”. That also seems unlikely.
Edited by Peter Cunliffe-Jones
In a press statement on the outcomes of an ANC national executive committee meeting held from 19 to 21 July 2013, the organisation’s secretary-general, Gwede Mantashe, claimed: “New schools have been built and continue to be built with special attention being given to the eradication of mud schools. 49 mud schools were replaced in 2012 and a total 101 is targeted in 2013.”
The 49 schools Mantashe was referring to form part of the department of basic education’s accelerated schools infrastructure delivery initiative. Its purpose is to eradicate 496 “inappropriate” schools and provide a basic level of water, sanitation and electricity to schools. Forty-nine schools were meant to be replaced in 2011/2012 financial year. (See slide 4 of the department’s presentation to a parliamentary standing committee on 19 October 2012)
The presentation revealed that only four out of the 49 schools had reached “practical completion”. It stated that the “remaining 45 of 49 are planned to be handed over during the October, November and December months”.
On 20 February 2013 the department stated that “16 of the 49 schools have reached practical completion and [had been] handed over”. (See slide 12)
On 4 June 2013, in a quarterly report on its performance in meeting its strategic objectives for 2012/13, the department said that “17 of the 49 school have reached practical completion and [have been] handed over”. (See slide 83)
- See more at: http://www.africacheck.org/reports/schools-promised-by-zuma-have-not-been-built/#sthash.oTlMK8pV.dpuf


AFRICA CHECK


COMMENTS BY SONNY


ALL OF ZUMA'S ELECTION PROMISES IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN FALSE.

INSTEAD HE HAS BUILT HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY A PALACE AT NKANDLA WITH

TAX PAYERS MONIES.

WILL THE POOR AND NEEDY EVER BE ABLE TO FORGIVE HIM?

WE DOUBT IT!

A FOOD PARCEL MAY GET THEM TO AGAIN TO VOTE FOR THEIR FALSE HERO.

HIS LEGACY WILL INCLUDE - ....."A LONG WALK TO NKANDLA!".....






How to make a quick billion bucks: Guptas vs. Sunday Times and M&G

No fear No Favour No Gupta's please........




Rebecca Davis South Africa 4 October 2013    01:33










After a brief respite after the launch of ANN7, the Guptas are back into the news. There are the ongoing revelations coming out of the ‘Guptagate’ military tribunal, and then the trifling fact that the Guptas want to sue the Mail & Guardian and Sunday Times for half a billion rand. Each. For defamation. The amount is being called absurd - but its intended effect may be more intimidation than anything else. By REBECCA DAVIS.



The Guptas want R1 billion, cumulatively, from two of South Africa’s top newspapers. As was observed by the Twitterati, it’s hard to resist saying their demand aloud in the voice of Dr Evil, the super-villain from the Austin Powers movies. Naturally, the Guptas have every right to turn to the courts if they believe newspapers are printing lies about them, and all media should be held to account for peddling falsehoods. But while the family may say they are suing to protect their reputation, in the court of popular opinion the scale of their financial demand may serve to sully it even further.
“The Gupta family is suing the Mail & Guardian and Sunday Times for R500 million each. If successful, these funds should keep ANN7 going for a while,” cheekily observed freedom of expression group Right2Know on Facebook on Thursday. No doubt a R1 billion windfall is always welcome, even for the Guptas, who decline to reveal the full extent of their fortune. But the idea that any media entity in the country has a spare half-billion in their change-jar with which to pay off a defamation suit seems nothing short of hilarious. What are the Guptas playing at with such an unrealistic demand?
First, the back story. The Guptas have been the subject of a tsunami of negative media attention over the past year, but two stories in particular have earned their displeasure. The Sunday Times article was published in March this year, headlined “Guptas tried to ‘buy’ SAA boss with R500k”. The story alleged that axed SAA chairman, Vuyisile Kona, was offered R500,000 by Rajesh Gupta shortly after taking up his position, although the story did not specify what the money was intended to achieve.
The claim was denied by the Guptas and the man who allegedly brokered the meeting, Tshepiso Magashule (son of Free State premier Ace Magashule). The Sunday Times wrote that they had “several” sources who had “knowledge of the meeting”. Shortly after publication, a Gupta spokesperson said that the family has issued a demand for a retraction and apology.
The Mail & Guardian story, meanwhile, also appeared in March, headlined “R10bn contract behind the dogfight at national carrier”. The article reiterated the Sunday Times claims about the meeting between the Guptas and Kona, which seems to be the crux of the Guptas’ beef with the M&G. In the court papers lodged by Rajesh Gupta, it is claimed that the M&G story had the intention of suggesting that the Guptas are “dishonest, corrupt and deceitful” by repeating the allegations of the Sunday Times story.
Among other aspects, the complaint says that the M&G story falsely suggests that “the Guptas maintained a secretive and manipulative relationship with senior government officials as to exercise undue influence and pressure on government officials as to gain benefits”, and that “the Guptas are known as a corrupt group of people”. The cumulative effect has been that the Guptas have been “prejudiced in that their good name and reputation suffered damages in an amount of R500 million”. The complaint does not specify how the figure of R500 million was arrived at.
A media lawyer quoted by the M&G said that this damages demand might well be unprecedented, and that South African courts do not usually award damages above around R250 000. “R500 million is a fantasy figure in a defamation case in this country,” Wits journalism head Anton Harber told the Daily Maverick on Thursday. “To put it into perspective, people wrongly accused of murder by the media have only been paid out in the low hundreds of thousands.”
A related case occurred when the Johannesburg high court ordered theCitizen newspaper to pay Ekhurhuleni Metro Police head candidate, Robert McBride, R200,000 for calling McBride a “criminal” and a “murderer” in 2003. This amount was, however, eventually reduced to R50,000 on appeal.
“The Guptas might claim for loss of income as a result of the newspaper stories,” Harber noted,  “but this is not easy to prove, and even then the R500 million figure is somewhat ludicrous.”
The Guptas’ lawyers will be aware that their claim is outlandish, and unlikely to be awarded. So what can they be hoping to achieve? There are a number of possibilities. One, as noted by the M&G, is that sometimes extravagant amounts can be demanded as part of a strategy aiming at an out-of-court settlement, which might be less than the initial claim but more than the amount which a court might order to be paid. Lawyer Lucien Pierce told the M&G that in this case, he believed the chances of this happening were “almost zero”.
An alternative possibility is that the lawsuit is essentially an intimidation tactic. “More likely their aim is to scare off their critics, lock the newspapers into long and expensive court cases, and hope to drain their energies and resources,” Harber said. “This can have a chilling effect, encouraging self-censorship.”
Back in August, when former Sowetan journalist Cecil Motsepe was convicted of criminal defamation, we wrote about the lasting impact some big civil defamation cases have had on South Africa’s media in the past. In particular, during Apartheid, the Vrye Weekblad’s loss of a defamation suit was a contributing factor to the newspaper’s demise.
In that case, a SAPS informant had told Vrye Weekblad that lieutenant-general Lothar Neethling had supplied poisons for political assassinations, but the court would not accept the informant’s version without corroborating evidence – which the newspaper lacked. The Neethling judgment was felt to have an extremely inhibiting effect on press freedom for a number of years thereafter, as the message it sent was that the plaintiff’s reputation would be given maximum protection by the courts. (Vrye Weekblad was eventually driven into bankruptcy in February 1994.)
But if the Guptas are hoping to warn South African editors off sniffing around their business, it seems they might be disappointed. The editors of both the Sunday Times and the M&G seemed uncowed by the litigation when the Daily Maverick approached them for comment on Thursday.
“The amount of damages claimed seems, to put it mildly, outrageous,” M&G editor-in-chief Chris Roper said. “One can’t help wondering whether this is more about intimidation than a desire for justice, but we’ll leave that for a court to decide. We will of course be vigorously defending the case.”
Sunday Times editor Phylicia Oppelt reiterated Roper’s speculation about the real purpose of the high damages claim: “We believe that the ludicrous sum of money claimed is a misguided effort to intimidate us into desisting from reporting on the family’s business dealings,” she said.
But Oppelt went one step further, saying the newspaper actively welcomed the opportunity to pore through the Guptas’ business interests in court. “Not only are we sure of our facts, but we believe a trial will shed some much-needed light on the way the Gupta family does business in South Africa,” Oppelt said. “The family has numerous interests in lucrative industries and is notoriously politically well connected. We look forward to their business practices being scrutinised in court.”
Will the Guptas find that they’ve bitten off more than they can chew, at the prospect of having their business practices laid open wide before a judge? Perhaps the exercise would be the kind of national catharsis the country needs after a year of Gupta-bashing headlines.
In the meantime, let’s see whether the Guptas suddenly disappear from news view. “One has to hope that the newspaper owners stand firm against the threat and the courts do not want to promote such a ‘chill’ on free speech,” Harber summed up. DM
Read more:
  • Gupta family suing M&G for R500m, in the M&G


Daily Maverick


COMMENTS BY SONNY


SOUTH AFRICA SHOULD DEPORT THIS FAMILY AND ALL THEIR ADOPTED FRIENDS!

It's only people who need their cash for sponsorships/favours/bribes......

At the moments they appear to be above the Law or Constitution.

They have also brought disrepute to our ailing president.