Perbatie Maharaj vs. The Witness

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Major-General Parbatie Maharaj and those of Zoubair Ayoob, editor of The Witness newspaper.

Complaint

Maharaj is complaining about a front-page lead in The Witness of 13 February 2016, headlined No love lost between Bantam and Maharaj – Stir over tea club money; PMB cluster commander and Ipid KZN boss blame each other for missing money.

She complains the story falsely stated that:

·        she had received a farewell party; and

·        missing money had allegedly been used to pay for this “party”.

She adds that the journalist failed to:

·        ask her about the “fight” between herself and cluster commander Brigadier Francis Bantham (who was the acting cluster commander); and

·        verify the information she had supplied to the reporter (she says that, even though she had refuted the allegation and had attached twenty pages of documentation to substantiate her response, the reporter still ignored her comments).

Maharaj concludes that the reportage has unnecessarily tarnished her reputation.

The text

The story said that Maharaj, a former Pietermaritzburg cluster commander and currently the head of the KZN Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid), had been accused of using public funds to throw an elaborate farewell party when she moved to Ipid in 2014.

However, Maharaj reportedly pointed a finger at Bantham, who allegedly intended to use R10 000 for a “grand function to market herself” as Maharaj’s replacement.

The journalist called this “clash” a “cat fight”.

The arguments

Maharaj complains The Witness repeated the allegation that tea club money was used for her farewell party, but failed to verify whether such a party was held (which she denies).

She says that, had the journalist considered the documentation she sent him, it would have been clear that the allegations were false – unless the journalist willfully aligned himself with a campaign to tarnish her good name as a former high-ranking member of the SAPS.

She says she also made it clear that all tea club funds were accounted for, that the books had been audited, and that all the financial records were available for inspection – yet, even though this had been pointed out to the newspaper, it still carried the false allegation that money was missing and that it was linked to her.

Maharaj says she sent The Witness the following documents:

·        a receipt for payment to an officer who conducted an audit;

·        another proof of receipt of the so-called missing records, signed for by different people in the SAPS for auditing purposes; and

·        minutes of meetings where decisions were taken regarding the disposal of funds.

She adds the story alleged that the Hawks were investigating a case of corruption against her, and notes that the journalist obtained comment from the SAPS provincial spokesman, Jay Naicker, and not from the Hawks’ spokesman. “The Hawks would have been in a better position to confirm or deny if any case or what sort of case was being investigated against me, if any,” she reasons.

Maharaj argues that, if money was missing, Bantham was the one to account for it. “This fact could have been easily established by the journalist…”

She concludes, “After my response, part of the angle of the story changed to one about a catfight between myself and Bantham. I was not given a chance to respond to these allegations… The only conclusion I can reach is that the journalist and newspaper willfully published patently false allegations to tarnish my good name.”

Ayoob replies the story did not state as fact that Maharaj had used funds for a farewell party, but rather that there had been allegations to this effect.

The police confirmed that a case had been opened in this regard, and that the Hawks were investigating the matter. “The volume of evidence Maharaj submitted notwithstanding, we had on-the-record police confirmation of a case being opened and transferred to the Hawks for investigation.”

He adds that the content of the letters sent to Ibid by both Maharaj and Bantham could fairly be described as a “cat fight”.

The editor submits that the story was balanced, as Maharaj’s version was well-represented.

Ayoob says the newspaper tried several times to contact the Hawks for their input, but its spokesman was not available at the time.

He denies that there was any intention to tarnish Maharaj’s reputation – “we merely reported on facts”. He adds that the matter was in the public interest because the allegations were about the misuse of public funds by public figures.

The editor concludes, “Nevertheless, we are happy to contact the Hawks again and check on the progress of the matter. If they confirm that they have dropped the case, we will be happy to report this and the reasons why.”

My considerations

The story reported Maharaj as saying that she had:

·        dismissed the allegations (“as a smear”);

·        explained to Ipid that she had transferred funds between accounts to avoid additional fees; and

·        denied that a farewell party for her ever took place.

She added that:

·        regular audits were done and that “all was in order”; and

·        the investigation was a smoke-screen to cover up the fact that her office had been investigating several cases of corruption.

These references, I submit, balanced out the allegations made against Maharaj. In this decision, I also take into account the fact that the newspaper had on-the-record evidence that a case had indeed been opened against Maharaj.

For the rest, I have no difficulty in accepting Ayoob’s arguments. The newspaper was merely the messenger in this case, and it has done nothing wrong.

Please note that this finding is not about the merits of the allegation of misspent money – that is not for this office to decide. It is merely an affirmation that the newspaper was justified in its reportage, given the information which was at its disposal.

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

Appeal

Our Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Johan Retief, Press Ombud