When did the South African Broadcasting Corporation’s ankle-length red dress turn into a black mini? That was the question posed by a representative of the public broadcaster at the Mail & Guardian‘s screening of the documentary Unauthorised: Thabo Mbeki in Johannesburg on Wednesday night.
SABC content enterprise executive Mvuso Mbebe was a late inclusion on the discussion panel after the broadcaster had threatened a court interdict on Wednesday to prevent the screening of the documentary at the M&G‘s Critical Thinking Forum. On Tuesday, it had threatened legal action against Broad Daylight Films and producer Ben Cashdan for the same reason.
However, after a meeting with the parties involved, the SABC had agreed to postpone its interdict application and let Wednesday night’s screening — as well as several others planned by the M&G and the Harold Wolpe Memorial Trust in the coming weeks — go ahead, as well as take part in the panel discussion.
Also on the panel were the Freedom of Expression Institute’s (FXI) Jane Duncan, Cashdan, co-producer and radio journalist Redi Direko and Mbeki author Ronald Suresh Roberts.
After the film was screened, Mbebe kicked off debate by voicing two reasons why the SABC had originally objected to the documentary. Using the dress metaphor, he said the film delivered by Cashdan and Direko was not what the broadcaster had ordered. Secondly, there had been concerns by both editorial staff and legal counsel about the content of the documentary.
“It’s a simple thing,” he said. “There’s no conspiracy, no other thing.”
He also referred to the matter of ownership of the film, emphasising that the SABC commissioned it and paid for it, and therefore it belongs to the SABC. “It’s a very simple principle of property law,” he said.
Unimpressed
Though most viewers at the screening seemed unimpressed by the film, many took the opportunity to criticise Mbebe. “What’s the big issue?” noted one of the 200 people who had been invited to the screening of the 24-minute film.
“I think it’s completely harmless. … It’s not that interesting, it’s boring and sensationalist,” said another man to laughter and applause. “You learn f-all about Mbeki,” said yet another viewer to more laughter.
Addressing Mbebe and referring to the film’s producers, Cashdan and Direko, another spectator said: “I think you’ve made heroes of people who’ve done a rather mediocre job.”
Mbebe looked decidedly uncomfortable by the end of the evening.
In his opening comments, Cashdan said the film hadn’t won any awards yet, but could win one for the most money and time spent on debating whether it should be broadcast.
Under fire during debate, he was quick to admit that there was nothing spectacular about the film and that it simply presented facts about Mbeki in a new way. He also conceded that it was done hastily and on a low budget.
Several high-profile people who said they would contribute to the film pulled out at the last minute, said Direko. Cashdan added that the SABC had dithered in paying for it and he had had to take money out of his bond to finance it.
“It’s a furore around an almost empty centre,” he said, referring to the controversy sparked by its canning. Explaining the logic behind the film, he said he wanted to “get the events of his childhood and rise to power out there and put it together in such a way that people can follow the thread”.
Going back to the SABC’s “red dress”, Cashdan asked: “Can you make a film or write a book to order? I don’t think you can.”
Defamatory?
Opinions were also divided on whether the documentary was defamatory. Its critics say the film insinuates that Mbeki may have had a hand in the assassination of South African Communist Party general secretary Chris Hani in 1993.
However, the producers argued that the film does not insinuate this; rather, it reports the rumour and then debunks it.
Said one lawyer: “You cannot defame a sitting president. I’d like to see the public broadcaster defame a sitting president. It would make for interesting law.”
But another lawyer, Justine Dangor, contradicted him. “Our high courts have said it is possible to defame a sitting president. The issue is whether or not there are defences. Defamation is always about context.”
Having done work for the SABC on previous occasions, she lamented the damage done to the image of the public broadcaster by not screening the film, and by the subsequent public furore.
Roberts, author of the recent Mbeki book Fit to Govern, asked: “Why was there no speculation on Mbeki’s involvement in Cyril Ramaphosa’s death?” When audience members pointed out that Ramaphosa was still alive, he countered: “That is what I meant to say. It would have been more plausible [than the claims regarding Hani].”
In the SABC’s defence, Mbebe said several lawyers who were consulted had noted there were “serious issues” of defamation. He added that the editorial team and not SABC bosses had expressed reservations about the film and called for it not to be screened.
He also lamented that an edited version of the documentary was not shown along with the original at the forum, so that those present could “judge whether the SABC’s objections were fair”.
‘Editor’s decision is final’
Roberts did not endear himself to the audience by taking the SABC’s side. He questioned why an SABC editorial decision was being debated. “For those of us who value media freedom, one of the sacred principles is that the editor’s decision is final … [This debate] is a bizarre exercise in removing the editorial integrity of the SABC, to which they are entitled.”
He said the film itself was “simply an attempt to regurgitate” ideas expressed by William Mervyn Gumede in his book on Mbeki.
He also noted that University of the Witwatersrand journalism lecturer Anton Harber and M&G columnist John Matshikiza were not present, although they had been scheduled to take part in the panel discussion. “Why is it okay for some people to shut down debate while ordinary decisions of the SABC are open to debate?” he demanded.
M&G editor Ferial Haffajee, who was also the moderator of the panel discussion, replied: “It’s true, Anton and John didn’t want to share a panel with Ronald.”
The FXI’s Duncan said the documentary’s critical tone was balanced by feel-good aspects and uplifting music. “His mother referred to Mbeki as a gentle soul … there is even a cheesy thread in the documentary,” she said to laughter.
On the Hani matter, Duncan said: “Whether we like it or not, the insinuation is out there. Preventing it from being uttered will not make it go away. It has to be dealt with once and for all.” She noted that there is a “growing conservative streak” towards defamation and an excessive deference to authority. “It should not be possible to defame a president, particularly when it comes to political speech.”
Regarding the ownership debate, Duncan said the SABC’s approach to copyright was “kragdadig” and not in line with international trends. To loud applause, she called for a greater balance between the needs of independent producers and the SABC. “Unless they [producers] feel that they will be supported and incentivised by the SABC … we will continue seeing these kinds of conflicts.”
Cashdan criticised the SABC for its management of the matter. He said senior bosses had become involved in the matter far too late, though Mbebe vigorously defended his involvement by insisting that he does not interfere with the duties of the SABC’s commissioning editors until asked to do so.
Mbebe also said an announcement on when the documentary would be screened would be made in two days, depending on what the lawyers had to say. “We are committed to showing it,” he added.
Screenings of the documentary are planned for the Orlando Community Hall in Soweto on July 19, MuseuMAfricA in Johannesburg on July 20, Oliver Tambo Hall in Khayelitsha on July 23, the Iziko Museum in Cape Town on July 24, the KwaSuka Theatre in Durban on July 25 and the KwaMashu Indoor Sports Centre, KwaMashu, on July 26