Somebody is lying – that much is clear.
The context is Audi alteram partem, one of the three principles of natural justice, namely, let the other side be heard.
On 21 January, Iqbal Survé published one of his usual polemics in his newspapers and on his IOL online portal.
He accused retired judge Kathleen Satchwell and the SANEF panel investigating unethical journalism of not seeking his input about numerous accusations from former and current Sekunjalo Independent Media employees of news bias in his company’s newspapers:
For the record, neither I nor Independent Media were approached by the Satchwell panel to make any submission or to respond to the unfounded allegations advanced by these disgruntled former employees.
It is indeed disappointing that the Satchwell panel, for whatever reason, chose not to get the other side of the story prior to finalising its report. If they did, their outcomes related to me and Independent Media would have most certainly taken a different trajectory.
Attacks from this quarter come as no surprise, however.
The response from the panel has come as an addendum to an updated edition of its Final Report:
Dr Iqbal Surve
The Panel has received a complaint from Dr I. Surve, Executive Chairman of Independent Media, that neither he nor his private office, executive management or editorial leadership received any requests for consultation with Dr Surve, as stated in paragraph 9.94 of the SANEF Report. The Panel stands by the contents of this paragraph. Further, the Panel notes that SANEF publicized the establishment and work of the Inquiry and encouraged all persons and institutions interested in or committed to issues pertaining to ethics and standards of practice in the media industry to communicate with the Inquiry which, regrettably, the Independent Group failed to do so.
The relevant paragraph is found on page 216 of the Report
9.94 Everyone to whom the Panel spoke, within and outside the community of journalism, deplored the ‘cronyism’ of the Independent Group. Regrettably, despite requests for meetings, the Panel received no response from the group chairman, Dr Iqbal Survé.
Whom do you believe?
The tenure of Iqbal Survé as owner of the biggest group of English newspapers in the country has been shrouded in an unprecedented level of scandal since 2013 – all of which has been documented and is available on the internet and in a book, Paper Tiger – so the suggestion that he would not have been approached by an Inquiry investigating media ethics is as credible as his other claims.
Brutal demolition
What is relevant in this regard is that Survé has never previously responded to concerns raised by former staff members after they went public about, in particular, his brutal demolition of the Cape Times as a newspaper of acknowledged excellence and trusted repute, so his complaint about the SANEF panel is disingenuous.
- He never responded to the excoriating allegations of former Cape Times political reporter, Dougie Oakes – see here and here and here – that he pressurised his reporters to favour the Zuma faction, surrounded himself with sycophants and that white staff were persecuted when Aneez Salie was editor of the newspaper.
- He never responded to the allegations in Paper Tiger by authors Alide Dasnois and Chris Whitfield – see here and here and here – that he drove out ethical newsroom staff and that he demanded that his editors publish adulatory articles about him with relentless frequency – see here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here.
- He never responded to the damning Daily Maverick article by Fikile-Ntsikelelo Moya headlined ‘I was fooled by Iqbal Survé’.
It would seem self-evident, then, that he was never going to respond to a request from the SANEF panel for input about these concerns.
In responding to his complaint the panel has made a self-evident point:
There was nothing to stop Survé of his own volition making a submission to the Commission from its commencement date in June 2019.
His approach, however, is to get his employees to write articles either praising him or defending him.
Ayanda Mdluli was promoted and made editor of the Daily News after publishing four such articles in four days – see here and here and here and here – something without precedent in South African newspaper history.
He also employs the time-worn conspiracy theory approach – at the Mpati Commission he claimed that, because he follows the country’s employment equity laws, his life is in danger, which, if true and logical, would put the life of every law-abiding company owner in the country at risk.
He constantly alleges that dark forces want to destroy his business and intimidate him without explaining why anyone would want to do this and without providing any proof other than blaming a disparate and alleged cabal of rival news companies and Pravin Gordhan and a judge. His political allies are quick to support him in this regard.
This approach is not working.
He has decimated the circulation figures of his newspapers – according to the latest figures from the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC) the Cape Times is now selling less than 10 000 copies a day in a city of three and half million people and the Pretoria News is selling less than 2 000 copies a day in a city which is home to two and half million people.
In Cape Town, the Cape Times carries a fraction of the advertising carried by the city’s other morning newspaper, Die Burger, a general trend which explains why the Sekunjalo and ANA newsroom staff were moved onto the AYO payroll, which for the moment is where the money is.
Headed for the exit
His auditor, BDO, has abandoned him and SASOL, the biggest client of AYO, has also headed for the exit.
The Mpati Commission’s findings about his business approach were not exactly flattering – see here and here and here and here and here and here.
In the coming year he faces civil claims in our courts by the Public Investment Corporation which wishes to liquidate Sekunjalo Independent Media, which it says is technically insolvent, and it also wants to reclaim the R4.3 billion it invested in AYO.
The FCSA is investigating him for potential share price manipulation and, according to evidence before the Zondo Commission, Arthur Fraser personally signed off on a R20 million backhander to a company linked to him.
When Iqbal Survé claims that the SANEF Commission ignored the audi rule, it comes down to who has the greatest credibility in the court of public opinion and we are talking here about a man who, by his own admission, used his personal bank account to shift some of Brett Kebble’s stolen millions to leading members of the ANCYL to buy their political support, and who was also involved in the Leisurenet scandal.
Terry Bell has researched Surve’s grandiose claims; the South African public seems to agree with him but nothing has come of Survé’s attempt to intimidate Bell.
Who, then, has the greatest credibility – the retired judge and her esteemed co-panelists, Nikiwe Bikitsha and Rich Mkhondo – or the self-proclaimed philanthropist?
As Judge Dennis Davis would say – it’s your call.
[Image: Andrys Stienstra from Pixabay]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend