Manto officials unwise (perhaps even stupid)

The Department of Health really knows how to generate bad publicity. Just as the controversy about the Minister alleged alcoholism and liver transplant queue jumping was dying down, its officials takes out a huge advert in daily papers to attack the judgment of the High Court in the case of Tshabalala-Msimang and Another v Makhanya and Others.

If only from a tactical perspective, publishing this advert was spectacularly unwise because it poured oil on a fire that was busy going out. It suggests a stubborn self-righteousness on the part of the Department officials. They really think by slagging off a judge in a paid for advert they will change the parameters of the debate around the Health Minister. Fat chance.

The advert is also problematic for at least two other reasons.

In a constitutional democracy like ours, there is a need to respect the principle of separation of powers. This means that the judiciary should not overstep the mark and intrude on the executive terrain. At the same time the executive should not be seen to interfere with the job of the judiciary.

When officials choose not to appeal a judgment of a lower court but then use tax payers money to criticise that judgment in the most disrespectful terms, stating like Sello Ramasala, the Head of Legal Services in the Department of Health, that the judgement was “a huge disappointment in terms of its internal contradictions and lack of coherence”, it suggest that the officials do not respect the boundary between the executive and the judiciary.

I am in favour of vigorous debate and criticism of court judgments as long as it does not impugn the dignity of an individual judge. It is therefore perfectly acceptable for lawyers and academics to argue that the judge in the Sunday Times case did not present a very good legal argument. But members of the executive have a duty to uphold the Constitution and the law and should not do anything seen as undermining respect for the law. This advert clearly does just that, suggesting that the judgement should not be respected.

Of course the advert is also problematic because the arguments put forward by the Head of Legal Services seem to fundamentally misunderstand the scope of the judgment. Mr Ramasala argues that the judge erred in finding that the Sunday Times had broken the law by possessing and quoting form the medical records – something prohibited by the National health Act – yet allowed the Sunday Times to continue commenting on the Minister’s health issues.

Mr Ramasala seems to think (or pretends to think?) that this means the judge allowed the Sunday Times to continue breaking the law from quoting from the Minister’s health records. But this is not what the judge did at all: he merely said that the Sunday Times could not be prevented from commenting on the unlawfully obtained records. This subtle but rather obvious difference eludes the learned lawyer from the Department of Health.

Of course this argument about the Minister’s health records is a red herring and has been used by the Department and the ANC to divert attention from the real issue which is whether the Minister is fit to continue in public office. Did she jump the queue to get a liver transplant, thereby abusing her power to save her own life and deprive another person from a life-saving operation? If she did jump the queue, she clearly is not fit even to sell second hand cars – let alone be the Minister of Health.

We also should focus on whether the Minister is actually doing her job. Given the difficult circumstances faced by our health care system, has the Minister’s stewardship made things better or has it been a disaster. Available evidence suggests the latter, but sadly this does not matter for those who can decide about the Minister’s fate.

Why would one worry about whether poor people are dying in our hospitals when one has an old friend to support and defend at all cost?

Manto and doctors must sue or else....

The Sunday Times is now being attacked from all sides for publishing the sensational allegations that Health Minister Manto Tshabalala Msimang was convicted thief and alcoholic and that the real reasons for her liver transplant (alcoholism) was covered up by medical staff. The National Working Committee (NWC) of the ANC (but not Kgalema Montlante!) issued a statement yesterday attacking the Sunday Times for its "character assassination" of Health Minister Manto Tshabalala Msimang. The statement read in part:

“The national working committee views these reports with grave concern, not merely because [they] violate an individual’s right to privacy, but because [they] affect the right of all South Africans to expect their medical information to remain confidential."

But the privacy of the Minister is not really the issue. Surely the statement from the ANC should have disputed the accuracy of the claims made by the Sunday Times. The "character assassination" by the Sunday Times does not stem from the breach of the Minister's medical privacy, but from seriously defamatory statements about her drinking habits and about the abuse of power and corruption by the Minister and her Doctors.

The only way the Minister, the doctors involved and the Hospital can restore their reputations is by instituting a defamation action against the Sunday Times. If the allegations are untrue, they will be able to sue the pants of the newspaper and probably get a pretty penny out of the deal.

If they fail to sue, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn would be that the newspaper report was correct and that there was corruption involved in the liver transplant. If this happens, the Minister should be fired and the Doctors scrapped from the medical roll.

The Presidency has asked for evidence of wrongdoing before taking action against the Minister. All the proof it may need will be provided by the absence of a defamation suit. But of course, even then the President will not fire the Minister because he will look weak and disloyal if he does. This means he is now probably stuck with a Minister which may well prove to be a thief and drunk and an abuser of her power.

I give the Minister and her Doctors two weeks to institute defamation proceedings. If they fail to do so, I will assume that the story is true.

Sunday Times advert circa 1985. . .

If only Ronald Suresh Roberts had seen this TV advert for the Sunday Times made in 1985 he would have had more to say about the sexism, racism and deeply obnoxious prejudice of this newspaper. Particularly shocking is the headline: "Exclusive picture interview with South African dying Aids victim..." Almost as bad as a headline in Huisgenoot several years ago: "Seuntjie met die pers gesig: kleurfoto's".

ANC paranoia is troubling and childish

Maybe there is something in the water at Luthuli House that makes people paranoid and stupid. The vehement response of the ANC to the report in last weeks Sunday Times that President Mbeki was defying the ANC is a case in point.

The report argued that because the policy conference had said it would be preferable for the leader of the ANC also to be the leader of the country, Mbeki`s announcement on the SABC that he was available for a third term amounted to defiance of the rank and file.

At first glance this seems at least like a credible assumption or interpretation of the available facts. But no, the ANC declaration argues that because the conference did not say in so many words that Mbeki should not stand, the conclusion arrived at by the Sunday Times was a ¨blatant lie¨.

This response is interesting for at least two reasons. First, it completely misconstrues the nature of what newspapers do when they report the news. The statement seems to be based on a sort of Stalinist understanding of news in which scientific facts (i.e. facts that correspond to the views of the party) are or should be reported by the media.

But the media cannot report such facts because the facts appear in a context and must be interpreted. Some times the interpretation of the facts by the media will differ from the interpretation by the political party. For that party to then assert that the media is peddling blatant lies, is to reveal a party with a messianic view of itself. If the party says something is so, it is a fact but if the media says something else it is a lie. Only the Party has direct access to the ¨truth¨.

This view of the all-knowing party is reflected in the following passage in the ANC response:

We trust that, in time, Mr Makhanya [the editor of the Sunday Times] will learn the important lesson about his own people, our people, that these masses know that lies have short legs, and therefore cannot travel far. As he learns this lesson, he might also come to understand why the ANC, a product of generations of African and black hope, which is deeply embedded in the psychology of these masses, is accurately described as a parliament of the people.

Maybe I am needlessly worried, but is it not potentially troubling that some members of the ANC sees the Party as the parliament of the people. Could this perhaps mean that what the ANC decides is more important than what Parliament decide? If so, what happens when Parliament stops being dominated by the ANC? This is the worst kind of exceptionalism and it can easily create the impression that the ANC is not as democratic as Mr. Suresh Roberts claims.

But there is a second troubling aspect to the statement. Why on earth is the ANC so paranoid when it has an almost 70% majority in Parliament and is in every way the dominant political force in South Africa? The statement reads in part:

It is perfectly clear that what Mr Makhanya, and presumably the newspaper he edits, seeks most fervently is to weaken the ANC. For this reason, he argues that our principled cohesion and unity, which he falsely characterises as ‘enormous power and trust (given) to one individual’ — the president — is inimical to the interests both of the ANC and the country.

The thought never occur to the mandarins at Luthuli House that the Sunday Times report was not a plot to weaken the ANC but part of the rough and tumble of politics. It is born out of the same messianic impulse described above because it is based on the notion that because the ANC is the parliament of the people only evil enemies could ever do or say anything that might not carry approval from the ANC. It is troubling and childish.

Strange how the ANC sees a plot around every corner – it is almost as if it has to conjure up enemies to keep the much vaunted unity in tact. The ANC has every right to criticize the media, but by doing it in such an over the top way, the organization really is not doing itself any favours.