A lesson in good citizenship

Vodacom must take to heart rebuke by top court

LATELY, court judgments have found much resonance in SA — and with good reason.

This week, amid the heartfelt celebrations for Nkosana Makate’s win against Vodacom in the Constitutional Court, a few sobering lessons were offered to the company and corporate SA more generally.

The analogy of a modernday David versus Goliath battle is often abused, but in this instance it is apt, and the highest court’s judgment amplified the sentiment.

After a legal battle spanning eight years, the Constitutional Court ordered Vodacom to compensate him for his idea to create a “Please call me” text service for cellphone users who had run out of airtime.

It was a resounding victory for Mr Makate, and the outpouring of celebratory comments on social media showed it had struck a chord.

Because, even though the high court had found that “please call me” was Mr Makate’s idea, it did not award him compensation, on technical legal grounds.

The Constitutional Court order means that finally, Mr Makate will get a slice of the billions Vodacom has earned from the service.

More importantly, the judgment confirmed what the high court had said — that former Vodacom CEO Alan Knott-Craig had lied brazenly about the origin of the idea when he claimed it as his own.

In commenting on Mr Knott-Craig’s claims, the high court had used phrases such as “implausible” and “not honest”. The Constitutional Court was more blunt, describing his claims as a “lie”, “untruthful” and “dishonourable”.

The court found too that Vodacom has “associated itself with the dishonourable conduct” of Mr Knott-Craig in not compensating Mr Makate.

While Vodacom was entitled in terms of the Constitution to raise the technical defences it did, it was “ironic that in pursuit of its constitutional right, Vodacom invoked legislation from the height of the apartheid era, to prevent the applicant from exercising the same right”, it said.

Accusing Mr Makate of having stolen the idea from MTN had been just one of the “disgraceful” aspects of the court case, said Justice Malcolm Wallis.

Mr Knott-Craig’s family says that he is not in a position to comment on the case, as he has been debilitated by a stroke suffered in 2013.

But Vodacom still needs to deal with the matters raised by the top court and, given the intensity of the rebukes, surely an apology is in order.

The judgment offers another message: big corporates should also be more considerate in how they conduct litigation, especially when they are up against less powerful adversaries.

Well-resourced companies tend to be ruthless and aggressive when the bottom line is threatened. They employ every legal and technical point they think will help them win, simply because they can.

However, Mr Makate would not have gone beyond the high

Vodacom invoked legislation from the apartheid era to prevent Mr Makate from exercising the same right

court had he not secured financial assistance.

Litigating aggressively may be fine when corporates are fighting each other, but when dealing with individuals such as Mr Makate, it may well earn them the kind of rebuke they got — at least that’s what the stern comments suggest.

The least Vodacom can do now is to act appropriately on the court order.

It must honour the spirit as well as the letter of the ruling and do right by Mr Makate.

The court ordered it to negotiate in good faith and that’s an order it dare not contravene.

Vodacom must try to avoid a deadlock and be open with Mr Makate about the revenue generated by the “Please call me” concept.

The judgment is a timely reminder that corporates — big and small — are also obliged to be good citizens.

They too have the Constitution as a guiding light, and must follow it.