The youth leader of the Congress of the People (Cope), Anele Mda, has expressed her dissatisfaction with a report on accusations that she has lied about her age and other issues.
The report, which appeared in the July 3 to 9 edition, quotes an Eastern Cape leader of Cope’s Youth Movement disputing her claim of having founded an NGO in Port St Johns. The report counters this with quotes from others, whose names were supplied by Mda herself, who support her version.
The article ends rather inconclusively: claim simply stands against counter-claim. But it is not this aspect that has drawn Mda’s anger. She objects to the handling of the other accusation, that she is 34 rather than 31.
In the report she is quoted as saying that the mistake arises from an incorrect date on her ID book — 1975 rather than 1978 — which she has tried unsuccessfully to get the department of home affairs to change.
It’s a plausible explanation: the story of a home affairs foul-up will ring true for any South African with experience of that department. She also refers to her birth and matric certificates, which she sent through to me to buttress her claim to being 31.
And indeed: the documents both give a date of birth of April 20 1978. Mda is unhappy that she was not originally asked for these documents, which she says would have proved her case.
You may well ask why we should care about whether she’s three years older or not.
The report says the alleged age of 34 raises ‘questions about her eligibility for membership of the movementâ€. It would have been good to spell out what those questions are: I’m told there is not yet a formal constitution which could impose an age limit, just an understanding that leaders should not be over 35.
If at some point the movement formalises that requirement, her age might become relevant to whether she can begin a term of office too close to the cut-off. But that’s a lot of ifs.
I’m not an expert on the Cope Youth Movement’s constitution, but Mda tells me it does not contain an age limit and so it is unclear what questions exactly an age of 34 would raise.
But 35 has become a generally accepted cut-off point, after which one can no longer claim to being part of the youth. Certainly the report could have been clearer on the significance of her age.
Whatever the context, the accusation against her is that she is lying. It obviously has weight in the internal disputes with Mda’s organisation, as it would elsewhere.
Leaders are expected to speak the truth. When they are caught out, their credibility takes a knock. But the story was not so much about her age as about the fact that these accusations were being made against her, illustrating the level of internal strife in the organisation.
Of course, events since then have shown that the leadership of the movement’s parent organisation is as deeply divided. There are circumstances when lies and rumours become reportable and the story about Mda is one. No documents can disprove the report’s core assertion about divisions within the youth movement.
In fact, Mda’s own response supports the point. ‘It’s a continuation of a failed attempt of thinking someone will bring Anele down. They’re using a toy gun: this information cannot harm my reputation,†she is quoted saying.
Nevertheless, the paper is not completely off the hook. The existence of such strong documentary evidence in Mda’s favour should have shaped the handling of the story.
As it stands, the claims are allowed to stand against each other as largely equivalent, with no attempt being made to weigh them. It’s a classic case of ‘he said, she said†reporting.
In much of their work journalists have to reflect conflicting accounts and usually do well to steer clear of judging which is stronger. It’s called not taking sides.
But where it is possible to evaluate the evidence, journalists should do so. This does not mean suppressing the version one regards as weaker, simply of making its lack of strength clear to readers.
In this case a young leader was able to offer convincing evidence to defend herself against accusations made by people largely hiding behind anonymity. That should have shaped the tone of the report.
I recently began to wonder at the relative emptiness of my inbox. It turned out that a gremlin had caused a huge number of emails to be swallowed into the depths of the Mail & Guardian system.
A lot of it was spam, but there were quite a few emails that I need to attend to. So if you have written to me and wondered why I haven’t responded, please accept my apologies. I will now be working my way through the backlog.
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 me at [email protected]. You can also call the paper at 011 250 7300 and leave a message