Cape Town - Independent Media on Wednesday night reacted to the Open Democracy Advice Centre, saying it had made material omissions in its statement supporting former Cape Times editor Alide Dasnois earlier this week.
In a letter to Odac’s Alison Tilley, Independent’s chief of staff Zenariah Barends said while the full facts pertaining to Dasnois’s dismissal from the company would be presented in the relevant forum in due course, there were a number of true facts missing and a number of ‘inaccuracies’ in Odac’s statement last week which painted a false picture of Dasnois’s dismissal.
Odac had claimed the key disciplinary charge against Dasnois had been “the decision to run a story about a Public Protector report on Sekunjalo”. Barends said this had not even been one of the disciplinary charges against Dasnois, especially not the most significant one.
“The relevant misconduct allegation pertained to Ms Dasnois’s 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. the Public 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 Dasnois’s redeployment from the Cape Times had been contemplated and discussed by management weeks before her conduct on 5/6 December 201” Barends said.
Odac had also failed to mention the balance of the misconduct charges which Dasnois faced at her disciplinary hearing, which amounted to four in total, all of which were serious and neither had Odac referred to the incompatibility/ incapacity element of the hearing which was a significant separate basis for dismissing Dasnois.
Odac’s statement: “The Public Protector found, among other things, that Sekunjalo had benefitted from an R800 million a year government tender which was improperly awarded” conspicuously omitted that the Public Proctor’s report “debunked the allegations of corruption and fraud that had been levelled at the Sekunjalo consortium in question and cleared it of any wrongdoing,” Barends said.
Barends accused Tilley of quoting selectively from the disciplinary chairperson’s report and duly failing to encapsulate the nub of the finding against Dasnois, which spoke of her probably motive: “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 regular meetings in preparation for this had taken place over the year. These were not followed and Ms Dasnois was aware of the SOPs.”
Barends said it was a correct that a ‘wrapper’ covering Mandela’s death had been prepared to coincide with the Cape Times edition of December 6 last year, but as the evidence presented to the chairman had established, that a wrapper does not carry the same weight as a newspaper’s front page. “In many cases, readers did not receive the wrapper, a risk inherent in the use of a wrapper prepared at the 11th hour instead of leading with the story on the front page, with the result that many readers of the Cape Times received no news of Madiba’s 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 Mandela’s death on 6 December 2013. The use of the wrapper also materially delayed the distribution of the paper and entailed significant additional, unnecessary cost,” Barends said.
She said there was no evidence that Dasnois’s dismissal had created a chilling effect among Independent’s editors and journalists. “Properly viewed, Ms Dasnois’s 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.”