Independent Media Letter to ODAC 9 July 104

8/9/2019 Independent Media Letter to ODAC 9 July 104

1/4

INDEPENDENTMEDIA (PTY)LIMITEDREG. NO. 1991/005270/07

PO Box 56, Cape Town, 8000 6thFloor(021) 488 4911 Telefax (021) 488 4018 Newspaper House

122 St Georges MallCape Town

8001

Open Democracy Advice CentreAttention: Ms Alison Tilley

Per email:[email protected]

09 July 2014

Dear Ms Tilley,

STATEMENT FROM ODAC RELATING TO ALIDE DASNOIS AND INDEPENDENT

NEWSPAPERS

I have been furnished with a copy of a public statement concerning Alide Dasnois and

Independent Newspapers, which appears to have emanated from your offices on 7 July

2014. For your ease of reference I attach a copy of this statement.

On the assumption that it is a statement that your office has published, I find it

necessary to record a number of matters in relation thereto.

Firstly, let me state at the outset that Independent Newspapers respects the right of

Ms Dasnois to access the courts and, in particular, her right to have her pending

disputes with Independent Newspapers adjudicated. Independent Newspapers also

respects your right (and that of ODAC) to express your opinion on the matter and

engage in fund-raising activities.

The full conspectus of relevant facts and circumstances surrounding Ms Dasnoiss

dismissal will be presented in the appropriate forum in due course and it is not my

intention to address all these facts in this correspondence. That said, however, there

are a number of factual inaccuracies contained in your statement which have the effect

of misrepresenting the true circumstances surrounding Ms Dasnoiss dismissal. Chief

among these are the following:

1. In your statement you allege that the most significant disciplinary charge against

Ms Dasnois was the decision to run a story about a Public Protector report on
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/4

Sekunjalo. In fact, this did not comprise one of the disciplinary charges at all,

let alone the most significant one. The relevant misconduct allegation

pertained to Ms Dasnoiss failure to lead editorially in the 6 December 2013

edition of the Cape Times with the death of Nelson Mandela, a story which was

indisputably the most newsworthy global story of the day. The content of the

story that she instead led with on the front page of the Cape Times (i.e. thePublic Protector story) was not the cause of her dismissal. It was her failure to

lead editorially with the biggest story in the world at the time that was one of

the reasons for her ultimate dismissal. Moreover, Ms Dasnoiss redeployment

from the Cape Times had been contemplated and discussed by management

weeks before her conduct on 5/6 December 2013.

2. Your statement also conspicuously fails to disclose the balance of the misconduct

allegations against Ms Dasnois (there were 4 in total), all of which were serious,

nor does it refer to the incompatibility/incapacity element of the hearing, which

was a significant separate basis for Ms Dasnoiss dismissal.

3. In your statement you allege that The Public Protector found, among other

things, that Sekunjalo had benefitted from an R800 million a year government

tender which was improperly awarded. I do not intend to deal in any detail in

this correspondence with the findings of the Public Protector, save to state,

however, what your statement again conspicuously omits is that the Public

Protectors report debunked the allegations of corruption and fraud that hadbeen levelled at the Sekunjalo consortium in question and cleared it of any

wrongdoing (the only additional outcome being a referral of one aspect of the

matter to the competition authorities for investigation).

4. In your statement you have quoted selectively from a portion of the report of

the disciplinary chairperson. The portion you have chosen to quote does not

encapsulate the nub of the finding against Dasnois. It refers to her probable

motive. The nub of the finding on the relevant misconduct allegation, which

appears immediately above the portion you have chosen to quote, reads as

follows:

It is my view that in failing to lead editorially with the biggest story in

the world at the time, Ms Dasnois demonstrated gross lack of judgement

expected of a seasoned Editor. She therefore failed to carry out her job

with the degree of care which her employer can reasonably expect from

her. Negligence has been demonstrated in the evidence presented as

there were Standard Operating Procedures for such an event and that


3/4

regular meetings in preparation for this had taken place over the year.

These were not followed and Ms Dasnois was aware of the SOPs.

5. While it is correct that a wrapper dealing with Mandelas death was prepared

for release with the 6 December 2013 edition of the Cape Times, as the evidence

presented before the disciplinary chairperson established, a wrapper clearly does

not carry the same status as the front page of the main edition of a newspaper

and, in many cases, readers did not receive the wrapper, a risk inherent in the

use of a wrapper prepared at the 11thhour instead of leading with the story on

the front page, with the result that many readers of the Cape Times received no

news of Madibas death in the edition of the Cape Times that they received on 6

December 2013. The main body of the newspaper itself did not contain one word

on the death of Mandela. This was in breach of the agreed SOP and it was done

by her without consulting relevant personnel at the Cape Times. It amounted

to a gross dereliction of duty on the part of Ms Dasnois. The Cape Times was

the only major Independent Newspapers title that failed to lead editorially with

Mandelas death on 6 December 2013. The use of the wrapper also materially

delayed the distribution of the paper and entailed significant additional,

unnecessary cost.

6. There is also no basis for your statement that Dasnoiss dismissal has created a

chilling effect among editors and journalists in the Independent Group and you

have not set out any facts in support of this allegation.

Properly viewed, Ms Dasnoiss dismissal is a matter of misconduct and incompatibility

/ incapacity in the workplace. It has no bearing on the the balancing of the rights of

media owners, and media workers, nor is the right to freedom of expression

implicated, as you allege.

As indicated above, we respect your right to express your opinion and to engage in

fund-raising for whatever causes you deem fit. However, when you do so on the basis

of a distorted portrayal of the facts and at the expense of the reputation of theIndependent Newspapers group, I believe that it is appropriate for the record to be set

straight. Furthermore, in the interests of transparency and disclosure, tenets on which

you ostensibly place a premium, I request that you distribute this letter to the

recipients of your statement, in order that they may make a properly informed decision

about their position regarding this matter.

Our rights remain fully reserved.


4/4

Yours sincerely,

ZENARIAH BARENDS(CHIEF OF STAFF)

Independent Media Letter to ODAC 9 July 104

Documents

Transcript of Independent Media Letter to ODAC 9 July 104