The following is the text of a response I recently sent to Jeremy Michaels, the spokesperson of Western Cape Premier Ebrahim Rasool. The premier’s office had complained about a Mail & Guardian report that said he may have oiled a deal to sell the Somerset Hospital site. Since he has quoted selectively in order to present me as rubbishing the report, I felt it would be useful for readers to have access to the full version of my views.
***
Dear Jeremy
I thought that both your complaint and the published letter would have been more helpful if it had been more specific in its rebuttal of the original report, and made less use of rhetoric. It can no longer be an argument against the publication of reports of this kind that they feed into prejudices about corruption. Fearless exposure of problems does more to improve our country’s image than hiding them. ÂÂ
Another point you make is that at some point reference was made to minutes of a meeting, and these later turned out to be notes. The published report only refers to notes, and in any event, I don’t think the difference is big enough to affect the report’s credibility.ÂÂ
Nor are the motives of those who passed on information about these events particularly relevant. In general, it is indeed so that much information arrives from people who have an axe to grind — some say all information comes with an agenda attached. Journalists should be aware of those agendas, and exercise caution. But information can’t be rejected simply because its publication benefits somebody. If they did that, newspapers would be fairly empty.ÂÂ
What matters is whether the facts stand up. Here you are quite clear: the report is untrue, you say, and argue that information from one unnamed source should not be allowed to outweigh that from three named ones. ÂÂ
This is a point that needs some scrutiny. Looking closely at the report, it seems that [Transport and Public Works MEC Marius] Fransman confirms there were meetings, but says they were informal. And Denis Lillie [project director for the 2010 World Cup in the department of transport and public works] also confirms there was a meeting in Cape Town in November. What he’s denying is that the sale of the Somerset site was discussed. (It does seem extraordinary — almost unbelievable — that by his account, he called a meeting to discuss investment opportunities in the area because Wilson [James Wilson, CEO of Nakheel Hotels and identified as Dubai World’s point man in Cape Town] had a spare $1-billion to spend, and did not consider that they might be interested in the neighbouring Somerset site. His account also does not square with the version in the Adams email [Cape Town businessman Hassen Adams], where it is described as a precinct planning discussion, dealing with roads and the like).
I am also told that the invitation to the Cape Town meeting includes an agenda headed ”Somerset Hospital: Meeting at the Cape Grace on the 7 November 2006”. Unfortunately, this is not in the report.
As for Dubai, we have the word of ”a senior provincial figure” who was a member of the party that the premier was part of a discussion of the site. This person does not seem to have been part of those discussions, though.
Cumulatively, it does seem that there are reasonable grounds for saying the premier was at meetings where the site came up. I was unable to find out exactly the wording of his statement on the matter to the provincial parliament. The way the M&G report reads, his denial was absolute and unambiguous. But in his letter, he talks of having ”squashed any such discussion”. When I asked you about this, you said something to the effect that his office had considered the wording of that statement very carefully. It does seem to me that the terms of his denial matter — an unqualified denial would seem not to square with the evidence.
However, I do think that the terms and nature of the discussions make a significant difference. Unfortunately, both the report and your response do not sufficiently address this. In both, the assumption seems to be too easily that any discussion equals the facilitation of a deal. ÂÂ
The meetings are described in sharply divergent ways: as informal, or held to discuss road planning, or investment in the area; in another description the premier quashed discussion on the site.
The M&G report quotes its main source as saying he was told the premier wanted senior officials there, that a figure and terms of a bid were mentioned, and that Adams assumed the sale was a done deal. ÂÂ
Although the discrepancies raise legitimate questions, I don’t think this is strong enough to support the suggestion that Rasool facilitated a deal.
It seems clearly inappropriate for provincial officials, more particularly the premier, to be part of discussions about the sale of such a valuable site outside the formal tender process. I do take the point that provincial — and other — politicians spend a fair amount of time touting for investment. But surely that should never be allowed to impinge on a fair tendering procedure.
I think the story was on reasonable grounds in reporting along these lines. But on the evidence presented in the report, I feel the headline may have been overstated in suggesting Rasool was facilitating a deal.
Thanks,
Franz
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 Franz Krüger at [email protected]. You can also phone the paper on 011 250 7300 and leave a message