Criticism of Mpofu a symptom of a bigger problem

SINCE when do opinion articles written by factional media cults count as fact? Surely, an opinion is just that – an opinion. And who is to say that one opinion holds more value than another?

This becomes striking as you read through the letter of complaint submitted to the General Council of the Bar by advocate DM Leathern SC, chairperson of the Pretoria Society of Advocates, chastising advocate Dali Mpofu's performance at the recent Judicial Service Commission (JSC) interviews for the next chief justice.

Interestingly, but not totally unexpectedly, Leathern cites three media articles from News24 and the Daily Maverick as the basis for his complaint, which argues that Mpofu brought the legal profession into disrepute and that Mpofu had fallen short in his representing of the fraternity in a respectful, dignified, objective and professional manner.

All three articles, in my opinion, carry the views of people who, as part of their clear factional bias, decry Mpofu's performance due to his political affiliations or his own opinions.

The behaviour of certain media groupings and individuals to speak in one voice is dangerous and becoming cult-like. However, I do not believe it is a coincidence, but rather purposeful design.

Many, caught in the crosshairs of political or professional expression, are being subjected to ridicule and bullying by the ‘establishment' who hide behind the veneer of their so-called journalism.

Their vulgar outright dismissal of another's opinion is shameful, shows a total lack of tolerance for others, and is dangerously on the edge of finally dividing an already fractured legal fraternity and society.

But the deeper issue lies in the growing acceptance of what these selfanointed opionistas and their personal bias proffer as fact.

Let's be clear, opinion is not and should not ever be accepted as hard fact. An opinion is one person's own perspective, belief or understanding of a particular experience or situation.

Professional bodies such as the General Council of the Bar should rely on the interrogation and substance of argument, rather than the emotional outbursts of people who are distraught because they can't control what people say or how they say it.

Mpofu had every right to question Judge Dunstan Mlambo about rumours of sexual harassment involving him – baseless or not. After all, Mlambo is interviewing for the apex position in a judiciary that has fallen woefully short in its response to gender-based violence, for example.

Should he have ignored the rumours?

Or what of his admission that he and Judge Maya had spent a night together studying during law school – should he have omitted that too?

Do the public not have a right to know the manner of the person who will rule over the word of law in their country?

Mpofu might have a different opinion or “way” to other JSC commissioners, but it does not make his opinion or contribution any less valuable than theirs.

Diversity of thought is to be celebrated, not chastised.