Publication: Business Day Date: 2005-11-25 Reporter: Vukani Mde Reporter:

Rule of Law Ignored as Media Prejudge Zuma Case 

 

Publication 

Business Day
Date

2005-11-25

Reporter

 Vukani Mde,

Web Link

www.bday.co.za

 

Wittingly or unwittingly, the media are armed combatants in the increasingly murky struggle for control of the African National Congress (ANC). This is bad enough at the best of times, but it is dangerous when the struggle is not about policy or principle, but about the capture and exercise of unfettered and naked power. That, frankly, is what the titanic tussle between Jacob Zuma and President Thabo Mbeki is about.

Since the emergence of the controversy around Zuma about three years ago, it is clear the media needs to examine its role.

We must ask if there is any truth to the cry of Zuma’s supporters that he has been treated shabbily in the media, and was prejudged before his corruption case was even certain to go to court. This is more urgent after the rape allegations against him, which exposed the ways in which newspapers can be used by the ANC’s contending factions.

A further question raised by the rape allegation is whether there is any public-interest argument that justifies violating both the law and the rights of the alleged victim and perpetrator.

Publishing the names of one or both of the involved parties is just such a violation. Both the Sunday Independent and Beeld now face complaints with the police ­ the Independent for naming her, and Beeld for publishing photos, complete with a helpful fact box. Both papers now refer coyly to the “alleged victim”.

Returning to Zuma’s corruption trial, has the press prejudged the issue of his guilt, as his backers allege? On balance, they have.

A recent example is from one of SA’s most influential weeklies. What are we to understand from the Mail & Guardian’s magnanimous declaration last week that it was willing to “accept” a not-guilty verdict in Zuma’s corruption trial? This was in exchange for an assurance from Zuma’s backers that they would accept a guilty verdict if that was the outcome. Let us ignore for a moment the conceit contained in the idea of the paper “accepting” a decision of the judiciary. Surely, anyone who needs to be persuaded to accept that Zuma is not guilty moves from the assumption that he is. That is fine for his political opponents, most of whom I am sure believe much worse things about him, but for a newspaper in a democratic setting, it should alarm us.

“Innocent Until Proven Guilty” shout the T-shirts worn by the foot soldiers of the Zuma faction at court appearances. We should not allow their political expropriation of a legal principle to confuse us. Zuma’s presumed innocence is not just a T-shirt slogan, nor a bargaining chip to be traded with his political supporters to get them to behave. It is a legal imperative the constitution enjoins us to uphold.

Even if Zuma survived his various troubles and got himself a judicial clean bill of health, the paper declared him an unsuitable presidential candidate because of his “personal habits and political style”. To be sure, the issue of Zuma’s suitability for public office is a matter of necessary public commentary. But the parameters within which the comment occurs must be fair and not laden with such innuendo. What does the tantalising phrase “personal habits” refer to? In the absence of any corroborating reportage on Zuma’s disagreeable personal habits, the newspaper’s comments must be received as what they are: a personal smear.

This is the most valid argument against newspapers publishing the rape story. That the Sunday Times, Sunday Independent and Beeld broke the law ­ when the media tells us that the rule of law is threatened by Zuma and his supporters ­ is beyond dispute. The crucial point is this: rape charges inevitably lead to an unseemly interrogation of the sexual proclivities of both accuser and accused. Presumably that is what is meant by Zuma’s “personal habits”. Predictably it did not take long for those who take it upon themselves to defend Zuma to engage in a smear campaign against the alleged victim, making all sorts of snide comments about her own “personal habits”?

One need only read the rubbish written by a News24 columnist ­ “Does she have a history, if you like, of this sort of thing? Does she have a boyfriend or boyfriends whom the media should have traced and interviewed? Could they go on record about her, and about her past?” ­ to know what I am talking about.

It is traumatic enough for rape survivors when this is done to them in court. For Zuma’s accuser, this violation will be done in public. The media bears the responsibility for that.

Mde is political correspondent.

With acknowledgements to Vukani Mde and Business Day.