“GAGGED” in the Republic of South Africa?

This story begins with a personal anecdotal flashback. As a young journalism student in Cameroon, my internship with The Herald, the leading Anglophone newspaper in the country, ushered me into the corridors of the political affairs unit (PAU) at the Ministry of Territorial Administration (MINAT). If one has ever lived in an oppressive society, in which the politics of fear, mistrust and uncertainty trump over the politics of candor, openness and dialogue, they would certainly recognize the role of the PAU. This is where papers underwent the test of compliance with the art of authoritarian flattery. The Herald went to MINAT at the same time as it went to press, because of the deadline constraints in publishing a tri-weekly newspaper, within a pseudo-democratic context. There were times when a news story was censored while it was on the presses. So it came to the reader with black streaks running diagonally from top-right to bottom-left of the page. That was a time which has fed my indelible passion for legitimate, accountable and representative leadership in Africa.

Those memories flooded me, when I saw the image of the Mail & Guardian Newspaper in the Republic of South Africa with a red band labeled “GAGGED” across the story. The injunction came down from the J’burg High Court Thursday, after the paper had already gone to press.

What was at issue with the story? Last week, the Mail & Guardian published a story now infamously referred to as “Oilgate.” In this story, they allege that the oil management company Imvume, paid the leading African National Congress R-11 million (approx. US$1.7 million) of taxpayer’s money, before last year’s elections. Judge Vas Soni ruled that Imvume, and its boss Sandi Majali’s right to privacy, dignity and reputation, trumped both freedom of expression and the public’s right to know about the conduct of their elected government. Hence the issue was not the veracity of the information, but the privacy in the economic dealings of private corporation and a public official entity. I am not sure what South Africa law says about this. If it provides blanket protection to the publicly elected official, then only the electorate can be called upon to sanction him.

Nevertheless, the ruling sets a troubling precedent in a South Africa still trying to shake off the vestiges of over a century of oppressive and divisive leadership. In the interest of accountability and disclosure in the democratic process, the ANC should be urged to come clean on the charges. Within a democratic context, such charges are bound to affect governmental credibility, which is a cornerstone of good governance. It may also be time for campaign finance reform in South Africa.