RE: PROPOSED MEDIA RELEASE : WRONGFUL PUBLICATION OF A FALSE AND DEFAMATORY ARTICLE REGARDING NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY AND ARTHUR FRASER IN THE PUBLICATION OF MAIL & GUARDIAN FOR PERIOD 09 TO 16 APRIL 2009, VOLUME 25  NO 14

We refer to the above matter and advise that we are acting for and on behalf of the National Intelligence Agency (hereinafter referred to as "the NIA") insofar as the above article has implications for it and Mr. ARTHUR FRASER, the Deputy Director General of the NIA (hereinafter referred to as the DDG).

The writer has been duly authorized by both above clients to make this press release accordingly if any content hereof is to be quoted the writer should be cited.

With regard to various recent media reports alleging that ARTHUR FRASER, the DDG of NIA had unlawfully provided the so-called secret tape recordings to Mr. Jacob Zuma's legal representatives, our clients, and in particular Mr. Fraser, categorically denies having supplied any tapes to Mr. Zuma's legal representatives or anyone else. In publishing the above false and defamatory article (Volume 25 No. 14 for the period 9 to 16 April 2009) and through its actions following thereon, the Mail & Guardian blatantly ignored the following common cause facts: -

1. At the very outset when the Mail & Guardian approached the authorised spokesperson of the NIA, to wit Lorna Daniels, she had categorically stated, (as was correctly cited in the above article) that "there was no basis to the allegation that [Fraser] handed the tapes to Jacob Zuma and/or his legal team.  He will have a real problem if you publish that allegation because it's unfounded and will damage his reputation and integrity";

2. The Mail & Guardian nevertheless proceeded to publish, in a manner which was portrayed as a fact, under a headline reading "The spy who saved Zuma";

"...that the National Intelligence Agency's (NIA) deputy head, Arthur Fraser, was the man who leaked to Zuma's lawyers the secret recordings that ultimately let him off the hook";

despite the fact that this allegation was categorically denied and pointedly indicated to be unfounded and without any basis whatsoever;

3. In so doing, it was abundantly clear that the Mail & Guardian had not even approached Mr. Hulley, Mr. Jacob Zuma's legal representative, to at least try to ascertain the truth or comply with the most basic practice of first ascertaining the veracity of the allegation before publishing same.  This fact was borne out by a subsequent article, published in the Sunday Independent wherein Mr. Hulley unequivocally stated that he had never even met Mr. Fraser and that there was absolutely no possibility that Mr. Fraser could have facilitated the supply of the secret recordings to Mr. Hulley without his knowledge.  (In this regard see the article in the Sunday Independent of 12 April 2009 wherein Mr. Hulley is quoted as saying that he knows who passed on the "information" and that it clearly was not Fraser.  He is further quoted as having said "It is information that was given to us by at least two

different sources");

4. On 15 April 2009 a letter of demand to the Mail & Guardian on behalf of Mr. Fraser was served on its editor wherein it was clearly stated that the allegations in the indicated article were completely false.  The content of the said letter of demand

incorporated, inter alia, the following: -

"We again re-iterate, as you were already made aware in the cited response by the NIA (but which you nevertheless chose to wrongfully ignore), that very serious damage to both Mr. Fraser's reputation and integrity, as well as the NIA, has resulted, and will continue to occur, following from your reckless disregard for others, and Mr. Fraser in particular, caused by you steadfastly persisting in publishing the article in question.

The extremely far reaching impact on Mr. Fraser's reputation and integrity (and accordingly also his position in which he serves in the interest of all South Africans to the benefit of South Africa as such), has further been exacerbated by the wide-spread publicity afforded to your publication of the injurious and defamatory article in question. This has even escalated to the extent that there have now been reports publicized that certain (political) parties have laid criminal charges against Mr Fraser - all of which is apparently premised on your unlawful, untrue and defamatory publication.

We accordingly demand that you immediately publish on the front page of your next publication (in a prominent manner appropriate to and commensurate with the extent of the relevant article) an unequivocal retraction and apology.

Given that in your relevant article your ostensible sources were not disclosed and are unknown to our client, those acting on his behalf and the NIA. It is also unknown on what premise, if at all the information obtained was subjected to any investigation or scrutiny in order to verify the veracity thereof. We, on behalf of our client, are not in any position to further comment thereon - save to indicate that your publication, management and staff members are particularly well aware to what extent unscrupulous peddlers of information require proper scrutiny prior to publication.

Despite the above, we nevertheless, for your benefit, wish to very briefly indicate the following:

Our client has to the best of his recollection never even met Mr Zuma's legal representative, Mr Hulley;

As you are well aware, our client and the NIA were only approached by Willie Hofmeyr of the NPA after the information and content of the secret recordings in possession of Zuma's legal team had already been disclosed to the NPA;

You are also aware that the purpose of Hofmeyr's approach to our client and the NIA in the above regard was in order to establish the authenticity and/or correctness of these secret recordings;

The NIA and our client had then only assisted the NPA in this regard with comparisons of the secret recordings provided to the NPA with other recordings which were lawfully in the possession of the NIA;

The Acting NPA head Adv Mpshe in his media statement on 06 April 2009 categorically stated that "the NPA decided to approach agencies(the writer's italics) conversations. The National Intelligence Agency (NIA) confirmed to the NPA that it indeed had legally obtained recordings of many(the writers italics) of the same conversations which were obtained during the course of its investigation into the circumstances surrounding the production and leaking of the Browse Mole report."

The Inspector General of Intelligence (IGI) is busy with an investigation with regard to the disclosure of the secret recordings and it would be completely inappropriate and premature to further comment with regard to the very issue which forms the subject matter being investigated by the IGI.

We further note, in addition to the above synopsis, the unjustified and unlawful attack on the professional and personal integrity of our client in your indicated publication by publishing, inter alia:

"Fraser did a political flip-flop...",

Fraser felt the need to ingratiate himself with the new administration of Zuma...",

"Fraser... handed the NIA tapes over",

"Fraser's initial investigation... was widely regarded... as flimsy and one-sided" etc.

It is needless to add that your reckless, unlawful and defamatory publication has further seriously compromised the integrity of the institute which our client represents and in which he fulfills a senior managerial function - which in itself has caused internal conflict, repercussions and consequential, damages.

Pursuant to what has been set out above the highly defamatory nature of your article in question (which is also contrary to public interest) should be self-evident and our client's rights in this regard are accordingly obviously reserved. We are currently taking full instructions in order to advise our client with regard to the various remedies available to both himself and the NIA, which obviously will include a claim for significant damages against the Mail & Guardian (and possible other parties as well)."

The above is a direct quotation from the letter of demand addressed to the Mail & Guardian.

5. On the same date (15 April 2009) a complaint was also directed to the press ombudsman wherein the above letter of demand was incorporated;

26. Accordingly, despite every effort having been made on behalf of Mr. Fraser and the NIA, as indicated above, to get the publication of an appropriate retraction of this most defamatory, prejudicial and damaging allegations, nothing significant has been done in this regard.  In fact following on this publication further damaging communications have been published of and concerning both Mr. Fraser and the NIA.

From the above it is clear that not only Mr. Fraser, but also the NIA have suffered severe unjustified prejudice and damage due to the above publication.

Our instructions are to consider the rights of Mr. Fraser and the NIA, and any infringements thereof, and take the appropriate steps, against those who might have infringed these rights, to redress such infringements.  In the interim and pursuant to an attempt to mitigate the ongoing prejudice and damages suffered by the NIA and Mr. Fraser it would be appreciated if this statement is released on SAPA as a matter of urgency, for which we thank you in anticipation.

Yours faithfully

PARKER & KHAN INCORPORATED

per:

M. PARKER

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter.