When the truth comes under siege from investigators, the subversion is not mere abandonment of exploration of facts, it is purposive deployment of lies clothed with institutional authority to lend credence to deceit, writes Makhudu Sefara
The past few weeks have revealed in a more forceful way how the very idea of ‘truth’ is under siege from, shall we say, so-called investigators–the very people in charge of systems meant to uncover facts and treat the truth as sacrosanct. They weaponise, distort or even manufacture reality through deliberate omissions.
Watching the former head of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (Idac) Andrea Johnson come apart in public before the Madlanga Commission was, I must admit, therapeutic for me given my run-ins with the Special Investigating Unit (SIU).
The type of malicious, or even criminal conduct that Johnson and her crew unleashed at Idac made a mockery of the very idea of a pursuit of truth and justice. It reminded me that the bureaucrats who abuse administrative power may feel brazen and impervious at a point in time–but impunity gives cold, very limited comfort.
Johnson’s flagrant abuse of power helped me see how easy it was for the SIU to claim that a community media event meant to benefit journalists did not happen and funds were “diverted” from their intended purpose when, in fact, there are bank records and eyewitnesses to the contrary.
I spent the last three months on special leave awaiting the outcomes of two sets of investigations led by senior counsels–one for my employer Arena and another for the South African National Editors’ Forum–to both confirm a truth I knew and lived which the SIU, through dishonesty, created an impression it wasn’t real.
While institutions like the SIU and Idac are designed to fairly seek and rely on the truth in their investigations, it is clear that systemic bias, operational overreach, and, at times, political pressure flip this dynamic on its head–with disastrous consequences for innocent people. What makes the abuse of power even more lethal is that we have put these institutions on a higher moral pedestal because they’re supposed to wage the good fight against corruption, a dangerous cancer gnawing away at our society.
When they publish, sometimes deliberately, wrong and damaging information, it’s natural to doubt ourselves before questioning their inaccuracies. We don’t want to discourage them or disturb their supposed good fight. This, however, seems to breed arrogance and a don’t care attitude.
Consequently, a different type of Frankenstein is being born. By the time it explodes, as we have seen with Idac, some in society will erroneously agitate for the entire organisation to be disestablished just like the Scorpions were. But the truth is that it is a few individuals, the rotten apples, who must be held accountable before they spoil the whole bag.
In my little battles with the SIU, both the Sanef and Arena probes found the obvious truth: that a startup Iled in 2018 hosted an event which took place on December 11 of that year. There are invoices, photographs, hand-written and signed attendance registers, identity numbers for about 40 people on whose behalf flights were booked, different airlines paid to transport guests, Birchwood hotel receipts and a guest list, a closeout report with pictures of speakers and attendees, additional pictures from the event; a business account from which over 90% of activities were paid.
Now, with all this data, how is it that the bright sparks at the SIU, our little keyboard warriors, were blinded to the event having taken place but others are able to establish the facts?
How is it that the flight payments evident from the business account and payment to Birchwood were not enough to say to someone, let’s wait before the statement is released and check with the former director of Unscripted Communication what the evident payments were for. Unless, of course, the SIU did not want the facts to come in the way of a good sensational piece of spin whose purpose was simply to “link” a top editor and Sanef chairperson to other people’s scandals, much like police commissioner Fannie Masemola.
The SIU, in its discredited April 28 statement, could easily say what others did with their so-called “diverted” funds: they paid for houses in Bassonia.
But what was I supposed to have done with the funds? Why couldn’t they say it then?
It’s simple: it would have not been possible to say it without explaining that some funds were paid to Birchwood (and then being forced to indicate why this was so)! Or say R73 448 was paid to Travelstart; or R30 593 was paid to SAA and explain what for. Or say FlySafAir (R21 692), Mango (R16 075), and others were also paid around the same time and explain why. These simple truths mess up a convenient narrative meant to unleash utmost reputational damage.
The facts would force the SIU to admit that “some of the funds”–at the very least–“were used by Unscripted to host the community media event”, which truth the investigators tried desperately to suppress because they understood that information supplied or omitted is a weapon. Appropriately weaponised, it can keep an editor at home for three months.
In the aftermath of that ill-fated SIU statement, which Werksmans has correctly characterised as “manifestly false” where it relates to me, I reached out to the SIU to volunteer information and evidence but its top brass were unavailable for a full two weeks, with SIU acting head Leonard Lekgetho in Namibia and the COO, Zodwa Xesibe, on leave.
While some run away from investigators, I was running towards them to clear my name–only they were not interested in even looking at my documents.
I was frozen in time while cheer leaders like GroundUp were trying desperately to prop up the falsity of the SIU statement and News24 getting excited by anything that impacts the Sunday Times negatively. As the truth was under siege, none of the excited media organisations asked the most important question of all: how did Makhudu Sefara abuse the funds allocated to him? Did he just pocket the funds and run? For R550 000? Please! Even if I was in self-destruction mode, it wouldn’t be worth it.
The media, in general, doubted itself. It put the SIU on a moral pedestal. The media could not imagine an SIU that was inaccurate, much less that deliberately pushed an Idac-type malicious agenda. The little Frankensteins were gaining muscles.
As the saying goes, the truth doesn’t shout–it waits for the noise to fade. When Werksmans Attorneys briefed Arena CEO Pule Molebeledi following a forensic investigation, they told him, “Mr Sefara was done dirty.” I wasn’t surprised. The only question now is who the chief instigator is and why?
Many people have asked me who I have pissed off because the behaviour of SIU officials is bizarre.
Three months later, the noisemakers are feeling awkward because everything they tried loudly to make us believe has, like Johnson at the Madlanga Commission, come apart so spectacularly, even if so sadly. Only arrogance is forcing the SIU not to publicly apologise.
When I managed to meet with them on May 15 I asked if they will be retracting and apologising. A chap called Ngwako Motsieng, one of their communications officials, said if they apologised to me, “can you imagine how many others would want the SIU to apologise?” It was strange that as a communications professional he did not see that his consideration of extraneous factors clouded his judgment. The reputation of the SIU trumps its willingness to act right. It was pointless engaging further. In letters exchanged with my lawyers, the SIU is happy to say it has not investigated me, makes no findings against me, has no claim against me, and had no need to talk to me before releasing its findings relating to Todi media. Yet, it did not think this crucial context should have been included in its April 28 statement.
Administrative law says omission is an action. Through omission, my name was butchered and the SIU was unmoved to provide context. Yet when Sanef released a statement in July which found no wrongdoing on my part, the SIU suddenly developed an unexplained obsession with the importance of context. It criticised Sanef’s statement for lacking context. It could not see the log in its own eye. Why froth at the mouth about someone that the SIU itself says it had not investigated? What’s with the excitement about my name?
They say they wanted to clarify that they did not exonerate Sefara as a beneficiary because some funds went into his business and personal accounts.
Yet the very thing they were “clarifying” I had confirmed publicly through a statement the same day they issued theirs in April, indicating the funds were not “diverted” but used by Unscripted to host a community media event at Birchwood. If I confirmed this in April, why is the SIU so touched two months later to clarify what was not in dispute?
The little Frankensteins were restless. Their arrogance wouldn’t just let Sanef speak. They wanted to show that context is important even when they remove it from their statements. The keyboard warriors of the SIU wanted to unleash violence for its sake. They were flexing. Like Johnson, they were drunk on power.
When their statement was issued in April, I knew nothing would mess up their spin, as they say in the classics, like the appearance of an eyewitness. I have plenty. Take Mathatha Tsedu, the doyen of South African journalism, the recipient of the Presidential Order of Ikhamanga in silver for fighting for democracy, a Sanef lifetime achiever and also someone who last year was a keynote speaker at the prestigious Nat Nakasa Awards. Tsedu, who was not paid, was a keynote speaker at this community media event that supposedly did not happen.
Ms Tasneem Carrim, a senior government communication official who was also not paid, was also a keynote speaker. I also stood on my own feet the whole day–except during breakaway sessions–facilitating important discussions. How is all of this, including documentary evidence and pictures, a dream? The Werksman’s investigators checked, among others, geolocation on pictures on my gadgets to see if they were indeed taken within the vicinity of Birchwood and circa 2018 and found the evidence credible.
When the truth comes under siege from investigators, the subversion is not mere abandonment of exploration of facts, it is purposive deployment of lies clothed with institutional authority to lend credence to deceit. If they say they know the event happened, why is this critical piece of information omitted from their statement?
What is sad is that the very people who are supposed to treat the truth as sacrosanct, weaponise their media statements in their flagrant disregard for constitutional rights. As one sage asked, “who will guard the guardians?” The question I ask is, “who will investigate the SIU’s wayward investigators?”
Having opened my bank accounts and put my version to investigators and top lawyers, the lesson is that to preserve the sanctity of truth, everything must be scrutinised, including statements from so-called corruption busters to check if no one else is subjected to undue public lynching even if through calculated omissions.
Makhudu Sefara is the Editor-in-Chief of the Sunday Times and TimesLIVE.