The other day a letter arrived from the Commissioner of Correctional Services, Xoliswa Sibeko, asking the newspaper to hand over evidence of corruption in the department to the Special Investigating Unit (SIU).
Sibeko wrote: ‘I believe that it is only if we work together that we can rid our society, government and department of correctional services of the scourge of fraud and corruption that threatens efforts to ensure a better life for all our people.”
She also expressed appreciation for the Mail & Guardian‘s interest in the SIU investigations into various contracts in the department and pointed out that the probe was costing the department R13-million a year. It was at an advanced stage, she wrote. At issue is the paper’s reporting of controversies around facilities management company Bosasa, catering and other contracts it has been awarded, further tenders it is seeking, investigations into them and the role of various departmental officials.
It’s not quite clear why the request comes from the commissioner, rather than the SIU.
Although not explicit, the letter seems to contain a suggestion that the M&G should step away from the story, and let the duly appointed authorities deal with the problem.
If that is the expectation, then the commissioner will be disappointed. I don’t know whether the M&G has anything else up its sleeve on this issue, but there can be no question of quietly dropping the story because the commissioner is embarrassed.
There are many instances where action was taken only because problems were uncovered by the media, in which newspaper reports were the catalyst for official action. Think of the disgraced ANC spokesperson Carl Niehaus. The ANC took action against him only when this newspaper exposed his dubious financial activities, unleashing floods of other stories.
That’s what journalists do: they publish stories. Their contribution to the fight against corruption, and to public life more generally, is made by placing information in the public domain.
This also dictates the terms of the relationship they have with their sources. If somebody provides information to a reporter, in words or documents, they are doing so on the understanding that this is how it will be used.
People sometimes decide to take their information to journalists rather than the authorities. They do so for a range of reasons, which may include distrust in the official agencies, trust in an individual journalist or newspaper, fear of consequences for themselves, and many others. Whatever they are, it is clear that they do so in expectation that the information will be used journalistically, not in any other way.
If the reporter then turns around and uses it differently, the source has been deceived. You cannot obtain information as a journalist and then turn into a police informer.
Although there may be cases in which there is some short-term gain from cooperating with an investigation, it has to be significant to outweigh the damage to the media’s credibility.
The authorities have long been interested in information in the hands of journalists and the media have had to fight them off time and again. When gang leader Rashied Staggie was murdered in public some years ago, the authorities tried hard to extract footage of the incident from the media, even though their own photographers were present. Resisting these efforts, the media argued not only the principle but also the very real threat to the safety of the photographers involved.
In 2003 former Sunday Times journalist Ranjeni Munusamy was subpoenaed by the Hefer Commission to give evidence on claims that the former National Director of Public Prosecutions, Bulelani Ngcuka, had been an apartheid spy. The move drew extensive protests from around the world.
Veteran editor and media freedom campaigner Raymond Louw wrote at the time that ‘public trust in the media as an impartial reporter of public affairs and as the protector of confidential information is lowered, if not destroyed” if journalists allowed a public perception that ‘they are being used in an extra-professional capacity as informants for the authorities, in this instance in the form of an inquiry”.
Some countries have shield laws that recognise journalists’ privilege, but South Africa still holds on to legal powers that can be used to compel journalists to provide evidence. Admittedly, they are not often used, particularly since a 1998 agreement between the South African National Editors’ Forum, the relevant government agencies and departments set out some ground rules for their use.
You see, Commissioner, this issue runs deep. There are important professional principles at stake: independence, trust and credibility. In any event, the SIU has powers and resources far beyond those of a small newspaper — R13-million a year is not small change. They must surely have far more evidence than the M&G. It will be good to see it used.
The Mail & Guardian’s ombud provides an independent view of the paper’s journalism. If you have any comments, contact me at [email protected]