By Sipho Tshabalala
In the world of media, there are journalists and then there are propagandists masquerading as journalists. Karyn Maughan’s recent disinformation campaign against Sekunjalo Group firmly places her in the latter category.
Her article, dripping with misleading headlines and selective omission, follows the well-worn path of media personalities who, like a master of illusion in a stage performance, craft narratives designed to manipulate public perception.
Maughan, who writes for Koos Bekker’s News24, has taken up a position in the ranks of those whose aim is to distort facts for the benefit of certain interests.
Before we dissect the layers of deception in Maughan’s article, it’s important to set the record straight with an unambiguous fact: Nedbank has never accused Sekunjalo of money laundering or corruption. This is not speculation. It is a clear statement, as outlined by Nedbank’s former CEO, Mike Brown, and Chief Legal Counsel, Zanele Mngadi, in a letter to Dr. Iqbal Survé, Chairman of the Sekunjalo Group and Independent Media:
“It is unfortunate that you appear to misconstrue the contents of the letters of termination that were sent by Nedbank and seem to have concluded that Nedbank is accusing you and/or the Sekunjalo Group of money laundering and corruption. We would like to reiterate that Nedbank has at no stage made any accusations of corruption or money laundering against yourself or any individual or entity in the Sekunjalo Group.”
Yet, despite this clear and public clarification, Karyn Maughan chooses to peddle a narrative aimed not at truth but at tarnishing Sekunjalo’s reputation. Her article is filled with half-truths, omissions, and sensationalism meant to mislead.
The Lies in Maughan's Headline
Maughan’s article, titled “ConCourt unanimously dismisses Sekunjalo Group’s bid to revive racism case against Nedbank”, opens with a fundamental lie. Sekunjalo was not trying to revive a racism case because the racism case has not yet even sat for a hearing. This legal battle is about an interdict to prevent Nedbank from prematurely closing Sekunjalo’s accounts, pending the actual racism case in the Equality Court.
Also, Maughan deliberately misleads the public by including AYO in her article about the Nedbank interdict. The truth is that AYO has no connection to the matter, it was never cited in any court papers about this matter. This is particularly misleading because the AYO and PIC case has already been settled.
Maughan’s intentional misrepresentation is reminiscent of the apartheid propaganda machine: twist facts just enough to blur the lines between truth and deception. It is not the first time Maughan has employed such tactics, but this particular headline crosses a line into deliberate obfuscation.
The Convenient Omissions
In her article, Maughan neglects to mention that Sekunjalo has taken the Mpati Commission report on review. This is crucial information, and its absence from her reporting speaks volumes. The omission is strategic—it does not inform the public that the Mpati Commission report is not perfect.
Moreover, Maughan conveniently avoids highlighting that the interdict in question was heard by five white judges in a matter concerning racial discrimination. The fact that these white judges ruled unanimously in favour of a white-owned bank against a black-owned company is no coincidence. It is part of a broader narrative that Maughan continues to perpetuate—one where black business owners are villainized while white-owned corporations are given a free pass.
The Real Story
Let’s not mince words: the racism case against Nedbank is very much alive, and it will be heard in the Equality Court. The interdict that Maughan writes about is a side issue, and her choice to frame it as the primary case is a deliberate distortion. In fact, there is prima facie evidence that white-owned companies such as Steinhoff, EOH, and Tongaat Hulett, all of whom have been involved in massive corruption scandals, continue to have their accounts open with Nedbank, while Sekunjalo, a black-owned company, has been singled out.
Judge Dolamo, of the Western Cape Equality Court, rightly pointed out that Nedbank’s treatment of Sekunjalo differed significantly from its treatment of white-owned companies embroiled in corruption. Yet, Maughan chooses to ignore this critical aspect in her reporting, further cementing her role as a propagandist rather than a journalist.
The Propaganda Machine
Maughan’s reporting fits seamlessly into a broader agenda—one that echoes the apartheid-era tactics, the state-sponsored disinformation campaign designed to suppress black voices.
Since Sekunjalo’s acquisition of Independent Media in 2013, there has been an ongoing campaign, largely driven by white-owned media, to discredit and economically sabotage the group.
Maughan’s articles are not mere reports; they are meticulously crafted propaganda pieces designed to delegitimize Sekunjalo’s legitimate legal grievances. Her approach mirrors that of Riefenstahl: create a narrative that suits your purpose and shape public perception, regardless of the facts.
Sekunjalo’s Right to Justice
It is vital to remember that Sekunjalo’s legal battle is not just about one company; it’s about economic justice and the right of black-owned businesses to exist in an economic landscape still dominated by the remnants of apartheid. The banks want to close Sekunjalo’s accounts now, hoping the case will become moot before it reaches the Equality Court, thereby denying Sekunjalo its constitutional right to trade.
As Judge Francis remarked on 14 February 2022, “it is fundamentally unfair and contrary to public policy for a bank to unilaterally decide to close an account.” Yet, Maughan paints Sekunjalo’s fight as an attack on the judiciary, twisting the group’s pursuit of justice into something nefarious.
Maughan’s reporting is not journalism; it is propaganda, pure and simple. She follows a playbook reminiscent of Riefenstahl, using her platform not to inform the public, but to manipulate it. As Sekunjalo continues its fight for justice, it must also contend with this type of biased, disingenuous reporting. The question remains: if Maughan and her ilk can continue to twist the truth so blatantly, what chance does true justice have in a court of public opinion poisoned by propaganda?
* Sipho Tshabalala is an independent writer and commentator.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or IOL.