Truth is out, again, about Dina Pule’s lies

This newspaper is ready to receive the former minister’s long overdue apology, writes Phylicia Oppelt

DINA Pule has now twice been found guilty of lying, acting unethically and bringing parliament into disrepute.

The first time — in August — Ben Turok, leading the investigation of parliament’s ethics committee into Pule’s relationship with Phosane Mngqibisa, found she had indeed lied about their involvement and how it led him to benefit financially.

Now comes public protector Thuli Madonsela’s report about Pule, and it is a painful, humiliating condemnation of a woman who allowed a lover’s influence to lead her to deceive and exploit the state.

For us, this has been no ordinary story of a minister abusing her power and office to benefit a romantic partner. Neither has it been the straightforward telling of a story by three journalists — Rob Rose, Mzilikazi wa Afrika and Stephan Hofstatter — of a cabinet minister’s lies.

The three journalists and this newspaper became part of the story — often the lead actors in a vindictive campaign by Pule and her various spin doctors to subvert the truth and cast aspersions on the integrity of the reporters involved.

In this, certainly, Pule did an astonishing job. The press statements over the months that a series of investigative stories were published about her and Mngqibisa stand as stark and frightening testimony to the lengths to which a minister will go to draw attention away from her own culpability.

There was that astounding press conference at the Hyatt Regency in Rosebank, Johannesburg, where Pule sought to “expose” Hofstatter, Rose and Wa Afrika as tainted journalists driven by self-interest and corrupt motives.

There she stood, saying the Sunday Times had not provided “any shred of evidence that I had broken the law. They have failed to point to any wrongdoing on my part.”

Pule went further, saying the “objective field of journalism has now been reduced to slander and the spread of salacious rumours. Real investigative journalists do not do this kind of journalism.”

Her allegations — enthusiastically driven by spin doctor Wisani Ngobeni — found fertile ground in South African media outlets and were repeated so often that the journalists’ guilt was almost cast in stone.

The press ombudsman’s office, the recipient of several complaints scripted by Ngobeni, found itself accused of “a treacherous whitewash attempt to legitimise the unethical journalism conduct of the Sunday Times editor”.

This, after Pule lodged three complaints against us: one for a story proving she blew R2.6-million appointing Mngqibisa’s cronies to top jobs in parastatals under her department’s control; one for reporting that she had sent her lawyer to apologise to us; and one accusing the Sunday Times of unethical conduct for cooperating with the ethics committee. They all were dismissed in their entirety.

Now the public protector’s report confirms one central fact: that it is Pule — rather than the journalists — who is guilty of improper and unethical conduct.

The parliamentary ethics committee had found this to be case, too, and in a stinging rebuke instructed Pule to apologise for her conduct. Madonsela recommends that Pule be fired from her job as ANC MP and that the money spent on Mngqibisa be repaid.

Ultimately, though, it is not only about our journalists being vindicated for their determination to prove that Pule had indeed lost control of the Communications Department and allowed a lover’s influence to triumph over her duty to the state and this country.

Pule, like former cooperative governance and traditional affairs minister Sicelo Shiceka and public works minister Gwen MahlanguNkabinde, was shown to be unworthy of the office she held and to which she had been appointed by President Jacob Zuma.

It begs some uncomfortable questions about the choices made when selecting senior government officials — and when competence and moral probity are sacrificed for political expediency and patronage.

Pule, by all accounts, was a compromise candidate from Mpumalanga — chosen because of her gender, her province and dealmaking before the ANC’s elective conference in Mangaung last year.

It has been said that Zuma would have continued to shield Pule had she not outlived her usefulness. That, apparently, was why she was dropped from the cabinet in July — not because she had become an embarrassment to the president.

During the course of the Pule scandal, one of her spokesmen, Siyabulela Qoza, issued a statement saying: “The latest fabricated story was published by the Sunday Times on 5 May 2013 in which the newspaper claimed that Minister Pule had sent a lawyer and a government official to apologise to the Sunday Times. For the record, Minister Pule has not apologised to the Sunday Times and has no intention to do so.”

As part of her recommendations, Madonsela suggests that Pule apologises to “the Sunday Times for the persistent insults and denial of the truth”.

We would be happy to hear Pule’s apology — long overdue though it might be. Unless, of course, she wishes to accuse Madonsela’s office of being “reduced to slander and the spread of malicious rumours”.