The National Party tabled a motion in the National Assembly this week (which, needless to say, was defeated) condemning our publication for what it described as an “untrue, vicious and malicious article in an attempt to smear the leader of the official opposition”.
The motion was the latest in a series of attempts, mostly by the Mail & Guardian’s commercial rivals in the newspaper industry, to misrepresent its disclosure that a smear campaign had been mounted against the leader of the NP, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, by means of an allegation that he paid R20 for sex with a young man.
The report referred to, carried in the April 30 to May 7 edition of the M&G, made it quite clear that the sexual allegations against Van Schalkwyk did not seem to be true. The thrust of the report was that a dirty tricks campaign, possibly involving blackmail, was being conducted against him. So far as we are aware not a single inaccuracy has yet been identified in the report or, for that matter, even alleged.
Nevertheless various opposition papers, in support of their own, obscure interests, have misrepresented the report in a manner designed to create the impression it was a “smear” on Van Schalkwyk.
Perhaps the most ludicrous attack on the M&G’s bona fides in publishing the report came from the Sunday newspaper, Rapport, in an editorial which claimed there was no element of “public interest” in the story and complained that the M&G had failed to await the outcome of police inquiries into the matter before rushing into print.
It is difficult to imagine a matter of more relevance to the public interest than an attempt to smear and/or blackmail the leader of the second-largest political party in the country. The convicted thief who made the allegations had laid a formal charge against Van Schalkwyk and there was never any suggestion from the police that publicity would impede their investigation.
On the contrary; the police – according to their own admission – pursued the investigation precisely because they wanted to send a message to the public that criminal charges against a prominent politician would be seriously followed up, and to remove any inference of a cover-up. This, in fact, would be the only way of establishing Van Schalkwyk’s innocence, ending the whispering campaign that was under way months before Hermanus laid his charge.
Even more deserving of contempt was an item in the Sunday Times’s Hogarth column which charged that the “yellowing tabloid, the Mail & Guardian” had “hit a new low by publishing allegations” that Van Schalkwyk “paid a man R20 for sex”. When one considers the disservice done to the image of broadsheets by the Sunday Times – with reports such as that at the weekend claiming Bob Geldof “played kinky games involving spanking sessions with a silk oriental slipper and a string of naked groupies” which on one occasion left a top horsewoman “naked and glowing” – one can only suggest it is time they rewarded themselves with their own “Mampara of the Week Award”.
Where the national leadership of the NP is concerned, we can only assume that their excited response to our report stems from that organisation’s long history of homophobia. We note, in this regard, Van Schalkwyk’s reported statement that: “Ek is ‘n boer seun. Ek is nie ‘n gay nie [I am a boer. I am not gay].” Whatever Van Schalkwyk’s sexual orientation may be, he can rest assured that its practice is protected by the Constitution and, as such, is of no interest to us.
Our concern was simply to establish whether a convicted felon – possibly as part of a conspiracy – endeavoured to exploit the NP’s sensitivity on the subject in order to smear and possibly blackmail its leader.
Western Cape Premier Gerald Morkel took the allegation of sodomy seriously enough to order the Cape’s top vice-officer to immediately probe the matter. We took the suspicion of a set-up seriously enough to publish it.
Je ne regrette rien
The findings of the African National Congress probe into Gauteng Premier Mathole Motshekga represent an extraordinary indictment of the leader of the country’s richest province.
The inquiry’s recommendations – back to school for a financial management course and a ban on seeing one of his closest associates – would have prompted men of lesser mettle than Motshekga to resign immediately.
We shudder to think what an independent commission would have recommended. The ANC report was incredibly brave considering Motshekga is one of its more popular leaders and Gauteng is a marginal province.
As for Motshekga he effectively gave his party the two fingers by claiming there was no evidence that he could not run his office. That should go down well at Shell House.
The probe has obviously vindicated the M&G’s reporting on the premier – and provides an appropriate backdrop for this week’s fresh revelations about Motshekga’s extra-curricular activities.
Perhaps it is time for the premier to consider another occupation: one in which time-management, book-keeping skills, and sound judgment are not requirements for the job.