The Human Rights Commission says that it served subpoenas on newspaper editors, including the editor of the Mail & Guardian, Phillip van Niekerk, because it believed this was the only way of ensuring their attendance at the hearings. The Mail & Guardian never refused to attend. What we did do was seek to establish the basis on which we were being ‘invited’ to the hearings. We were anxious to find out what we were being charged with. Here is the letter we received from the HRC in response to our request to explain how we were implicated in the HRC’s interim report. Below it is an edited extract from the last letter our attorneys sent to the HRC before the subpoena was issued on February 11:
25th January 2000
Please be advised that the South African Human Rights Commission commissioned the investigation and the research was conducted for and on behalf of the Commission. The report alludes to prima facie violations and these warrant our requesting a response from those implicated. Furthermore the allegations stem not only from the report but also from the submissions received. We attached hereto a copy of the SAHRC’s media release published on 18th November 1999 for your information.
With regard to your client’s contention that they are not sure in what manner they are implicated and what they are being called to respond to, we request that the following allegations be addressed:
1. MMP report – pages 25-27
In an article on the 13th August 1999, the story was titled “African war virus spreads to Caprivi” and pictures of unidentified bodies were used. It is alleged that this contributed to the depersonalisation of Black deaths and represented them as just another statistic. These allegations need to be read with the comments on pages 26 and 27 of that report; and, on page 31 of that report.
2. Page 42 – MMP Report
In your issue of the 23rd July 1999 – you put forward the perception/idea that Black persons criticising or acting against White persons is racism.
3. Pages 48-52 – of Claudia Braude Report
You are required to respond to the allegations in the report in these pages and without detracting from the need to answer all the allegations and complaints in those pages; your response and comments on the following are needed:
(a) The ownership and senior personnel of South African Media has always been owned and controlled by White business.
(b) And despite recent change of ownership levels, the political agenda of the media has not changed.
(c) After the new political dispensation there was a marked change in the editorial slant and content of the newspapers.
(d) The Mail & Guardian over-represents alleged corruption and incompetence among Black people and under-representation of Whites for similar alleged offences.
(e) The Mail & Guardian “violates the rights of Black people to be heard in that it refuses to publish responses to allegations published in the newspaper or complaints regarding the content or manner of its reporting”.
We further advise that you may make submissions to the panel at the public hearings scheduled for the first week of March 2000. The two researchers will be available to be cross-examined.
Kindly let us have your urgent response to the allegations within 14 days from the date hereof.
Please do not hesitate to contact us, should you have any queries.