Sordid revelations regarding the shrouded history of amaBhungane Chair Professor Tawana Kupe have left the media outfit with egg on their faces – especially given their claim that as journalists, they should be the sole judges of what is and is not in the public interest.
Kupe recently resigned as the vice-chancellor of the University of Pretoria after new information came to light regarding his alleged misconduct and sexual harassment charges while serving as the vice-principal and deputy vice-chancellor at the University of Witwatersrand.
Kupe was found guilty of the Wits charges after an internal probe in 2016, but had apparently failed to disclose his disciplinary record to UP before being appointed in 2018. Yet somehow amaBhungane, despite their self-claimed commitment to “public interest journalism” and “digging dung, fertilising democracy”, likewise overlooked his past.
Rumours and anonymous complaints have dogged Kupe for months, if not years, finally sparking an official UP investigation into the matter and even drawing the attention of the parliamentary portfolio committee on higher education in October last year. But amaBhungane has not only failed to reconsider his appointment as the leader of their Board, but has persistently failed to report on him at all – even after the allegations emerged.
AmaBhungane’s journalists had months to look into and report on the matter – so why didn’t they? If journalists, as they claim, should be the final determinants of what information belongs in the public domain, surely a case involving an individual found guilty of sexual harassment being placed at a major university with vulnerable female students should have been a priority?
Whether deliberate or not, it’s clear that their abilities as “investigative” reporters do not extend to their own, highlighting a worryingly selective reporting style that is clearly not as fair, unbiased, and balanced as they would like us to believe.
This begs the question – who is it that watches the watchdogs? Sam Sole, Managing Partner of AmaBhungane is currently waging an all-out public relations campaign that would have us believe that journalists are effectively above the law, and that the rights of media trump all other rights. But as this incident highlights, there is a very real risk that journalists can be unreliable narrators who fail to disclose key information or stories when it is not in their best interests.
The reality is that journalists must be subject to the same Constitution as other South African citizens, and that the public must be allowed to challenge media in the courts without being tarred and feathered for daring to question them.
Public interest is not a clear-cut concept and media are not infallible. The public should have the right to question and judge for themselves regarding where their interests truly lie. Ultimately, without abiding by the rule of law, South Africa risks being ruled by rogue journalists who are just as subject to the capricious whimsies as ancient Greek and Roman gods.
BUSINESS REPORT