05 February 2008

Dear Subscribers

On Friday 01 February 2008, I sent out a mail with three questions for three organisations regarding the allegations in the Mail and Guardian on 22 September 2006 that gave cause for Maanda Manyatshe to resign from his job as Managing Director of MTN South Africa in 2006.

Mail and Guardian have responded to their question as set out below.

Question: 01 February 2008 - (M&G) You have claimed that criminal charges/criminal complaints have been filed against Maanda Manyatshe? T he police were quoted in your report of 22 September as confirming that they are investigating the matter (of fraud allegations against Maanda Manyatshe).

It has been 16 months, please provide us with the Police Station and a case reference number. As responsible journalists I'm sure you must have asked for one.

Answer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefaans Brummer"
To: "Bart"
Cc: "Franz Kruger"; "sam sole"
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 12:49 PM
Subject: Police investigation

Dear Bart

Franz asked me some time ago whether we could provide you with details about
the police investigation as confirmed in our original article.

We do not mind giving you the SAPS officer's details as long as he/she was
not speaking off the record, in which case our professional ethics would bar
us from doing so.

It appears that my colleague Sam Sole interacted with SAPS. Sam has been
unable to retrieve a record of this because of a computer failure.

Experts are trying to retrieve this and other information.

Thanks for your patience.

Best

Stefaans

My response:

Quote: "Tell Sam I said van Schoor"

The policeman being quoted as "investigating" this matter is a Detective van Schoor.

I trust this jogs the memory.

My comment

It is wholly implausible the fundamental claim of a criminal complaint against Maanda Manyatshe has never seen an independent comment, regarding the confirmation or validation of a case after 16 months and a blizzard of legal processes, court cases and Forensic investigations (including one of the biggest damages lawsuits in South African history and a Ministerial probe) - from the SAPS.

Every investigation into this affair has studiously avoided the question. If there is in fact or ever was an investigation by the Police into Maanda Manyatshe regarding his alleged involvement with fraud and corruption in the VDH matter then what is the status of this investigation, who is investigating the case, which police station is responsible for the investigation, and what is the case reference number?

Mail and Guardian

That's the sharp end then isn't it.

One Postmaster accuses a previous one in a criminal complaint "affidavit".

This is newsworthy. So you run with it.

The Postmaster who makes the allegations it is later found in personal correspondence emanating from his desk, as well as minutes from the Board, to have lied about the entire substance of his allegations as is seen from the letter to the Board of 06 June 2006 and the minutes of the discussion of the Board on 11 June 2006.

In numerous newspaper and live radio interviews this same Postmaster is quoted as conceding he lied to the media and the Board about having approval to lay a criminal complaint.

This is not newsworthy because it invalidates your story.

Your source's "affidavit" with material inconsistencies was held up in a Court of Law - twice (once by you) - and in arbitration proceedings once.

This matter is soon to be referred to the Appellate Division of the High Court where that same "affidavit" will be held up again.

Provided the policeman you refer to can be found the "affidavit" allegedly in his/her possession will also contain the material misrepresentations.

The fact that these misrepresentations are repeated and made by none other than the Chief Commissioner of Oaths of the Republic of South Africa is not something you find in the publics interest.

Stefaans, a misrepresentation in a sworn statement is a lie. Handing that sworn statement up as evidence in a court is perjury.

Whatever you choose to do, having the facts before you as you now do, your newspaper, knowingly and intentionally, is making itself guilty of a broader conspiracy to commit perjury and fraud by omission.

I have no problem with that.

I await the results of your inquiry regarding the identity and contact details of the "investigating" officer you quote in your article of 22 September 2006 and subsequent articles and the case reference number. Hiding behind confidentiality and professional ethics just won't cut it.

There is nothing confidential about there being a case or not.

Look outside your window tomorrow.

I'll be there.

Subscribers

You see folks it's not about being right, its about doing the right thing.

Beware a newspaper that has lost its collective conscience.

Regards


Bart

To Subscribe or Unsubscribe to/from this newsletter please click here