In September 2006 I sought to prevent the Mail & Guardian from publishing a story detailing allegations of possible fraud, violations of tender rules and contraventions of the Public Finance Management Act that took place while I was head of the South African Post Office (Sapo).
On September 14 2006 High Court Judge Mohammed Jajbhay granted an interim order prohibiting the M&G from “publishing, disclosing, or in any way disseminating information or documentation in any manner relating or pertaining to or arising from” a set of questions that the paper had sent me.
The M&G took this up on appeal before Judge Surette Snyders. My legal team argued that my rights to privacy, dignity and reputation should outweigh the newspaper’s right to free speech. Judge Snyders disagreed, ruling that the media had a constitutional duty to assist in uncovering wrongdoing and bringing it to the attention of the public.
The legal tussle was marked at the time by front-page news suggesting that I was attempting to subvert a democratic process, with headlines shouting “The perils of gagging the press”, “M&G wins battle for media freedom” and “M&G will ‘vigorously’ contest interdict”. The newspaper used its full power to set the tone and climate for my appeal.
Snyders said that the seriousness of the allegations against me, my failure to give a proper response to the M&G in my version to the court, and my public stature persuaded her of the “reasonableness” of publishing the exposé.
I immediately made notice of my intention to seek leave to appeal her decision.
A year later, on October 30 2007, before the same judge, I was granted leave to appeal to the Appellate Division of the High Court in Bloemfontein.
Judge Snyders found that, in view of the evidence, the Supreme Court of Appeal could well come to a different conclusion and rule in favour of the appellant. She rejected the M&G‘s argument that although the damage to the appellant has been done, this does not mean that the appeal is of no practical effect.
Moreover, the exercise of assessing the rights of an individual and the rights of the public to know is a very important one. The case can be distinguished from that of Midi TV, which turned on the administration of justice, rather than an assessment of individual rights.
What this means is that I have no intention of seeking to restrict a free press or to subvert the democratic process. However, I am intrigued by the M&G‘s attempt to prevent me from exercising my democratic rights and freedom to have my matter heard in the Appellate Division.
My argument against the newspaper hinges on the fact that it held up an “affidavit” in court that had never been notarised or even signed by its alleged author. They published my name, suggesting criminal charges had been brought against me, when in fact I had never been brought up on these charges in court.
These actions are in my view a gross violation of my rights and the media’s abuse of its role and responsibility.
I was cleared by three internal Sapo inquiries after I left, and I have subsequently been cleared in another two, including a ministerial investigation.
On April 12 2007, in Business Day under the headline “Minister cagey about Post Office report”, Rob Rose, after an interview with the minister of communications, wrote that she stated “[sic] the forensic probe had not investigated whether former CEO Maanda Manyatshe flouted tender procedures to ensure that a company called Vision Design House was appointed to redesign the image of the Post Office at an exorbitant expense.
“This was being debated in an arbitration process.”
Earlier this year, in arbitration proceedings between Vision Design House (VDH) — with whom I supposedly had a corrupt relationship — and Sapo, the Sapo counter-claim of R31-million damages as a result of fraud and corruption was defeated by VDH. The claim of fraud and corruption was not dignified by the arbitrators with a mention in their ruling despite two days of cross-examination.
The M&G remained completely silent on the outcome of my leave to appeal, displaying a marked deviation from the experience I suffered when they were successful. This is remarkable in view of the vigour with which they covered the “importance” of their stand in the articles below the headlines mentioned.
Over the past year or so I have defended my name and reputation and have been successful for one reason alone: there is no evidence against me. My innocence is enshrined under the Constitution and presumed.
I was widely credited with helping to turn around the fortunes of the Post Office, bringing it to profitability for the first time. I would have been the first CEO of any organisation to corrupt a company to profit.
At the minimum I would have expected a signed affidavit, a specific board resolution and actual evidence of my wrongdoing.
What is apparent is that the claims against me have been found to be bankrupt and that grounds exist for substantial claims for damages.
It is on this basis that I am seeking recourse.