INDEPENDENT MEDIA (PTY) LIMITED

REG. NO. 1991/005270/07

PO Box 56, Cape Town, 8000

(021) 488 4911 Telefax (021) 488 4018

6th Floor
Newspaper House
122 St Georges Mall
Cape Town
8001

Open Democracy Advice Centre

Attention: Ms Alison Tilley
Per email: alisont@opendemocracy.org.za
09 July 2014
Dear Ms Tilley,
STATEMENT FROM ODAC RELATING TO ALIDE DASNOIS AND INDEPENDENT
NEWSPAPERS
I have been furnished with a copy of a public statement concerning Alide Dasnois and
Independent Newspapers, which appears to have emanated from your offices on 7 July
2014. For your ease of reference I attach a copy of this statement.
On the assumption that it is a statement that your office has published, I find it
necessary to record a number of matters in relation thereto.
Firstly, let me state at the outset that Independent Newspapers respects the right of
Ms Dasnois to access the courts and, in particular, her right to have her pending
disputes with Independent Newspapers adjudicated. Independent Newspapers also
respects your right (and that of ODAC) to express your opinion on the matter and
engage in fund-raising activities.
The full conspectus of relevant facts and circumstances surrounding Ms Dasnoiss
dismissal will be presented in the appropriate forum in due course and it is not my
intention to address all these facts in this correspondence. That said, however, there
are a number of factual inaccuracies contained in your statement which have the effect
of misrepresenting the true circumstances surrounding Ms Dasnoiss dismissal. Chief
among these are the following:
1. In your statement you allege that the most significant disciplinary charge against
Ms Dasnois was the decision to run a story about a Public Protector report on

Sekunjalo. In fact, this did not comprise one of the disciplinary charges at all,
let alone the most significant one. The relevant misconduct allegation
pertained to Ms Dasnoiss 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 Dasnoiss redeployment
from the Cape Times had been contemplated and discussed by management
weeks before her conduct on 5/6 December 2013.
2. Your statement also conspicuously fails to disclose the balance of the misconduct
allegations against Ms Dasnois (there were 4 in total), all of which were serious,
nor does it refer to the incompatibility/incapacity element of the hearing, which
was a significant separate basis for Ms Dasnoiss dismissal.
3. In your statement you allege that The Public Protector found, among other
things, that Sekunjalo had benefitted from an R800 million a year government
tender which was improperly awarded. I do not intend to deal in any detail in
this correspondence with the findings of the Public Protector, save to state,
however, what your statement again conspicuously omits is that the Public
Protectors report debunked the allegations of corruption and fraud that had
been levelled at the Sekunjalo consortium in question and cleared it of any
wrongdoing (the only additional outcome being a referral of one aspect of the
matter to the competition authorities for investigation).
4. In your statement you have quoted selectively from a portion of the report of
the disciplinary chairperson. The portion you have chosen to quote does not
encapsulate the nub of the finding against Dasnois. It refers to her probable
motive. The nub of the finding on the relevant misconduct allegation, which
appears immediately above the portion you have chosen to quote, reads as
follows:
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.
5. While it is correct that a wrapper dealing with Mandelas death was prepared
for release with the 6 December 2013 edition of the Cape Times, as the evidence
presented before the disciplinary chairperson established, a wrapper clearly does
not carry the same status as the front page of the main edition of a newspaper
and, 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 Madibas 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
Mandelas death on 6 December 2013. The use of the wrapper also materially
delayed the distribution of the paper and entailed significant additional,
unnecessary cost.
6. There is also no basis for your statement that Dasnoiss dismissal has created a
chilling effect among editors and journalists in the Independent Group and you
have not set out any facts in support of this allegation.
Properly viewed, Ms Dasnoiss 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.
As indicated above, we respect your right to express your opinion and to engage in
fund-raising for whatever causes you deem fit. However, when you do so on the basis
of a distorted portrayal of the facts and at the expense of the reputation of the
Independent Newspapers group, I believe that it is appropriate for the record to be set
straight. Furthermore, in the interests of transparency and disclosure, tenets on which
you ostensibly place a premium, I request that you distribute this letter to the
recipients of your statement, in order that they may make a properly informed decision
about their position regarding this matter.
Our rights remain fully reserved.

Yours sincerely,
ZENARIAH BARENDS
(CHIEF OF STAFF)