'Naive and irresponsible,' says former don

By Adam Kurtz

The case of Llewellyn Kriel poses some intriguing questions for South Africa.

Kriel (54), a fixed-term contractor to the Sowetan working as senior revise sub-editor (one of two end-of-the-line quality controllers), was found guilty of “gross misconduct” by an internal disciplinary hearing for “bringing Sowetan into disrepute” by criticising its management and “making public confidential information”. No “sentence” was imposed on the first charge. He was fired for the second one — the first South African journalist to be fired for blogging.

On Monday, he begins an appeals process against the findings. The appeal will be chaired by the publisher and CEO of Sowetan, Bongani Keswa, an interesting appointment in my view.

The case has not only attracted international interest among the blogging community, but marks what could ultimately become a turning point in human rights and freedoms in South Africa’s corporate environment.

South Africa has one of the most liberal and progressive Constitutions in the world and its Bill of Rights, together with several other pieces of legislation, is held up by the ruling African National Congress as a symbol of its humanist policies and racial reconciliation. And with much justification.

But Kriel’s case, and hundreds of similar instances, has thrown into stark relief the chasm that exists in South Africa between theory and practice.

Trades union and even members of the ANC’s so-called “tripartite alliance”, not to mention scores of NGOs, opinion formers, academics, researchers and watchdog bodies, have accused big business of only paying lip service to such hot-potato issues as black empowerment, transparency, gender equality, skills development, incentivisation of work, fairness and now freedom of expression.

In the wake of the global outcry — at least in cyberspace and the blogosphere — around Kriel’s sacking, the critical spotlight has fallen on the extent to which companies do and should allow their employees greater freedom to criticise management outside the tightly controlled confines of its own corporate policies.

To what extent are malpractices, abuse and neglect of human rights kept silent through company policies and rules of conduct? If companies are held accountable financially and ecologically, should they not be held up to public scrutiny as well for encouraging free and open debate? Would our society be where it is today were it not for the courageous whistle-blowers who threw back the curtains of secrecy, enshrined as company policy, and exposed mismanagement and even criminal activities?

By extension, we might even be justified in asking: Was Kriel right?

He had some pretty scathing things to say about the lack of training, transparency and the way management at the Sowetan and its holding company, Avusa (previously Johnnic Communications) view their responsibilities. Those kinds of criticisms may be swept under the carpet by shooting the messenger, but, judging by the been-there-seen-that comments in response to Kriel’s blogs, there should be some very worried executives and directors at the company’s upmarket Rosebank head offices.

When some of the results of the company’s attitude audit were disclosed in July and August, there must have been some rather red faces too. The research survey painted very bleak pictures of some of the company’s divisions — specifically editorial departments and Kriel’s much-aggrieved employer (although, admittedly, the Sowetan was not the corporate lowlight — that dubious distinction went to a sister newspaper, the Daily Dispatch in East London).

Still (as Monty Python might say), makes you think, don’t it? It is quite ironical that, in throwing the book at a senior journalist and one with Kriel’s remarkable credentials (the first African world champion orator — actually the first African to compete in the World Championship of Public Speaking — LK), the Sowetan has arguably brought upon itself more “disrepute” than Kriel’s blog ever did.

And recent history has shown that it only takes one outspoken critic to expose the cracks in even the thickest corporate facades. Other voices soon follow to unleash torrents of similar reports that see share prices begin to nose-dive.

Returning to my earlier point about Kriel’s blog being a turning point: it has become specious for companies to cower behind “confidentiality clauses” in the new epoch of the internet. One can measure in seconds the time between an email hitting employee screens and it being forwarded to websites worldwide. Not to mention the deliberate interception of even “confidential” emails — as the notorious events that saw one of South Africa’s “grand old men” of journalism, Peter Davis, forced to resign as editor of Durban’s Sunday Tribune a few years ago.

Unless a company acknowledges its responsibility to safeguard its secrets, it is a naive and irresponsible organisation. I might have insurance on my wee flat in Edinburgh and my earthly goods and chattels inside, but my insurers would take a dim view of any claim should it come to light that I had not taken adequate care to protect my assets. The same applies to companies today — and they’d better wake up to their obligations quickly.

Thus, as the outrage around cartoons of Muhammad focused the spotlight on Islamic sensitivities and the power of a segment of readers, and more recently columnist Deon Maas’s firing from Rapport highlighted the power of an orchestrated effort to influence the media, so the Kriel incident will focus attention on freedom of expression and a company’s obligations to protect its secrets more effectively in the age of the internet, blogging, podcasts, P2P, email and many more facets.

And it is only just beginning.

Professor Adam Kurtz and I met in the mid-Nineties when I was spokesman for the Chamber of Mines and he was researching a paper on South Africa’s transition to democracy as reflected in the microcosm of the gold mining industry. He asked if I would “host” this article. He is now retired after many years of lecturing in journalism and lives in Edinburgh. — Llewellyn