Joost a bit ticked off

When I got back to the office from court this morning I bumped into Joost van der Westhuizen, the former Blue Bulls and Springbok scrumhalf who was recently inducted into the Rugby Hall of Fame. Winner of everything the game has to offer, including the World Cup 1995, I was surprised to see that this likeable athlete was down in the mouth.

As a Blue Bulls and Bokke fanatic I obviously couldn’t just leave it there so I asked him what was happening. It turns out that during 2007 he did a bit of public speaking to a crowd known as Finshure, as a result of which he was approached by Freddie Andalaft of Progressive Investment Holdings Limited, who told him that he had liked what he had seen.

In February of 2008 a formal approach was made to Joost to become CEO of the company. He told Andalaft that while he was keen to get started in business, the fact that he was only now moving from the rugby fields to the boardroom meant that he would be woefully inexperienced and unsure of how to deal with the position. As a result it was agreed that he would first undergo a training course under a life coach, brought in from an independent company, by the name of Murray Kilgour.

Joost explained that the group was made up of financial services companies (nine in all) and a property company which meant that he had a vast amount to learn before he could start taking an active role. The intention was to train him to assume the role of CEO and then insert him into that position when he was ready.

As such, he was a CEO in training and for this purpose would sit in on other people’s meetings as a way of learning the ropes. At no stage did he have decision making powers.

In April of 2008 Joost was called in by Andalaft who advised him that the company was going to be placed under curatorship as a result of a dispute that was ongoing between the FSB and two previous companies in their group. These were companies that Joost had had absolutely nothing to do with. Andalaft offered him the choice of carrying on or calling it a day and Joost opted for the latter.

What is common cause is that Joost was training for CEO but never made it and was never in a position of authority Most importantly, he had nothing to do with the companies that were involved with the problems giving rise to the curatorship.

Notwithstanding the above it appears that the media were intent on using Joost’s name as the drawcard for articles surrounding the problems that these companies were having. The fact that he was uninvolved with anything to do with the issues under scrutiny and had hardly begun his training, were deemed irrelevant in certain quarters of the media. Unfortunately you probably missed their subsequent apology — which they did publish — unless you used a microscope.

This week we looked at the issue of the media and President Kgalema Motlanthe’s right to privacy versus freedom of expression. Here we are dealing with the right to print garbage, then check your facts, then make a half-hearted apology versus a myriad of rights being infringed — from reputation to dignity and privacy.

South Africa’s sportsmen and women are our pride and joy. Yes, they do get into trouble and are rightfully exposed but what about cases where an individual of the highest integrity is juxtaposed to bilge because nobody bothered to check the facts?

While Joost can undoubtedly claim damages from the parties who infringed his rights, this will take months and years. What of the geniuses who feel entitled to go large on trash about our sportsmen and women and miniscule on the apology? Isn’t there something legal that we should be doing to give them reason to pause and avoid this happening in the future?

I’m waiting to hear from you lot because when it comes to the Springboks, the Proteas and Bafana Bafana in particular, I am overly protective.

Let’s get creative.