BPNCC Statement on DailyMaverick Article Attacking Professor Mamokgethi Phakeng #HandsOffPhakeng
03 October 2022
The Black Peoples’ National Crisis Committee notes with deep concern the article titled ‘Dark Days: Accusation of Capture and Governance Instability’ published by the Daily Maverick today on 3 October 2022. In this article, Davis details a number of allegations relating to the institutional health of the University of Cape Town under the leadership of Vice Chancellor, Professor Mamokgethi Phakeng.
The first accusation relates to Associate Professor Lis Lange who has resigned from the University. It is alleged that she did not leave on her own accord and was in fact pushed out. The second allegation is that the atmosphere and culture of the public institution have become toxic. Since these allegations have not yet been tested in an open forum nor ventilated within the Labour or other courts, we wish to condemn the ongoing attacks launched against Prof Phakeng.
It has become common-cause for the media, particularly the Daily Maverick, to treat rumours and untested allegations as truth in order to position particular black professionals as unethical and incompetent governance agents. In the article in question, there are no details providing the context and reasons for which the top executives have left UCT.
This is a deliberate move on the partial tone of the Daily Maverick to make it seem there is a direct nexus between the departed executives and the leadership style of the Vice Chancellor. It is not possible that all executives would have left due to a 'toxic culture' but Davis constructs it as such for the purpose of achieving an 'angle' that will capture the public imagination.
The article also constructs 'legitimacy' around the allegations by making use of sources that are regarded as 'UCT insiders' to push the idea that Phakeng is an incorrigible monster beyond reproach and that there are no avenues through which she can be held accountable for any misdemeanour - perceived or real.
To aid this construction, Davis uses a total of about 632 words out of 4067 (accounting for 16% of the article) to re-hash the politics surrounding a report that was released by UCT’s former Ombud, Zetu Makamandela-Mguqulwa. Among other things, this report claimed that Phakeng was toxic to extent that she kept a black book of all those who did not support her.
The contents of this report were never tested. Furthermore, the report failed at the basic legal standard of upholding the audi alteram partem rule which proffers the expectation that an accused person be given a right of reply. In other words, Phakeng was never given the opportunity to plead to the charges preferred against her by that report.
As a flagrant display of partiality, Davis does not raise any issue with the methodological approach taken in compiling the report but treats it as a legitimate piece of ethnographic material on the culture of UCT. The decision to cite that report and Makamandela means she has used her powerful journalistic position to advertently co-sign a process in which Phakeng’s rights to dignity, association and expression were violated and where the principles of fairness and equality were not upheld.
In mounting the attack on Phakeng, the article makes mention of anonymous ‘UCT’s insiders’ to reinforce the idea that there are people who fear the Vice Chancellor. The problem with this use of anonymity is that the positions of these UCT insiders are unknown, their motives unascertainable and the broader context more elusive than South Africa’s economic development.
Readers of this publication are therefore likely to gullibly consume the myth of devil Phakeng as truth. Those who have opposed Phakeng in principle have always done so openly, which is a matter of public record.
Yet, the biggest threat of this anonymity is that it sets the Daily Maverick up as vulnerable to being used as a PR machine by those who have lost their personal bids within the public institution of UCT, particularly as Phakeng was re-appointed for a second term on the strength of a 75% vote by Senate.
What is also unfortunate about this article is that it peddles some institutional non-truths. For example, the Executive of Human Resources does not report to the Chief Operating Officer (COO). Furthermore, the Chief Financial Officer has always been in the office of the Vice Chancellor. The purpose of this is to strengthen accountability since the buck of any that happens with the portfolio stops with the Vice Chancellor.
The choice to forego the journalistic responsibility of verifying facts reflects poorly on the editorial practices on the part of Daily Maverick and diminishes any confidence that thinking South Africans have in the paper.
In the smear campaign article by Davis, there is also no mention of Phakeng being given a right of reply or her refusal to comment. This is not surprising as Phakeng is scheduled to deliver a Public Lecture today as an illustrious visiting professor and honorary doctorate holder of the University of Bristol. We believe that the rush to publish this article was to ensure that her credibility and good name are doubted by the international audience that will be watching her deliver as brilliantly as she is known to. The attack on her through this article is therefore more politically expedient for the Daily Maverick and its associates than editorial ethics.
The Daily Maverick creates a smoke screen by including a disclaimer at the bottom of its article, listing the people who are close to the publication and those who have links with UCT. Among them is the embattled Director of Marketing and Communications Gerda Kruger who is the ‘life partner’ to the Daily Maverick’s Managing Editor.
In the same article, there is speak about the Daily Maverick having seen documents of UCT organisational plans which may have been confidential. These associations are a conflict of interest and the Daily Maverick should have recused itself from running this story in order to protect its independence.
Within a broader culture of media leaks and in the absence of a credible ethics board for the media, the Daily Maverick overrode the principle for short-term gains. If the media’s role is to hold those in power to account and protect democracy and instead protects those it is aligned with and the sophisticated networks of white mediocrity, then the media ethics crisis is far deeper than a post-apartheid dream can rescue.
The critical ethical question then becomes: to whom would Rebecca Davis have to account for her ethical missteps if senior journalists and editors themselves have a vested interest in the allegations?
The ongoing anti-intellectualism in the media on all issues political and governance serves the purpose of denigrating black professionals and ensures that they are not held equal in both the court of public opinion and the courts of the judiciary. This is something that we as the BPNCC believe should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Media houses in South Africa should not allow themselves to be used as PR machines by those disgruntled by the positive fate of black professionals who are keen on transforming this society. It is also for this reason that all alternative black-owned media houses should be funded because well-established familial and capital networks perform very well in attacking black executives who remain a statistical minority and who are isolated and vulnerable by virtue of their minority status.
As the BPNCC, we, therefore, pledge our unequivocal support for the transformative leadership of B-rated NRF scholar and award-winning university executive Professor Mamokgethi Phakeng and condemn the ongoing attacks by those who are affronted by her decisive and indomitable excellence.
Issued by Songezo Mazizi, 3 October 2022
