By Edmond Phiri

In a surprising deviation from the values that guide responsible journalism, Chris Roper and Ann Crotty recently authored articles supporting the arbitrary closure of bank accounts associated with Independent Media. Their arguments, attempting to appear rational, reveal critical flaws that betray not only their journalistic integrity but also a lack of understanding of the very principles that define a democratic society.

Dedicating long, incoherent ramblings laced with subtle racist insults, Roper tried excessively to mimic the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. But even Goebbels would be disappointed with the B-grade propaganda produced by Roper. Roper dedicated almost 1,700 words to trivialise the pain of the workers and organisations who will suffer due to the bank account closures. For BusinessDay to allot such space for Roper is telling of the level of respect they hold for their readers and black people in general.

Roper accuses Independent Media of spreading misinformation in its coverage of the news articles and opinion pieces reacting to the Standard Bank's closure of bank accounts. However, he was borrowing from Goebbels, accusing Independent of something he himself was doing - so much for projection. In a typical "baaskap" mentality, Roper seeks to police and dictate how black people should react to pain and adversity.

Roper's arguments are a full display of white privilege and a desperate attempt to undermine and trivialise the predicament faced by fellow journalists and media colleagues at Independent Media. For Roper, the lives and livelihoods of black families mean nothing, as seen in his attitude towards one of the big four black-owned media companies.

He dismisses concerns from journalists, a widow, and the broad community about the bank accounts closure as "misinformation." In his view, opinions must be 'bought and paid for' to be valid, a stance that highlights his arrogant, detached, and cynical outlook.

What's more, Roper's insults and his support for the bank's decision are rooted in an argument that prioritises an institution's right to "reputation risk" management over legal due process and society's collective good. His appeal to corporate self-interest disregards the potential impact on the media landscape, notably the suppression of diverse voices.

Although diverging from Roper's approach, Crotty is no less insidious in her reasoning. Her arguments equally undermine the values of justice and fairness.

She contends that the banks were justified in their actions, arguing that they would "face regulatory fines," thus justifying their one-sided draconian measures of arbitrary bank account closures. However, she fails to weigh the cost and consequences of their decision. She overlooks that the 'slap-on-the-wrist' fines are a feeble justification for entirely closing and debanking businesses, particularly when considering the profound cost and ramifications of such decisions.

Crotty's position reveals, at the very least, that Reserve Bank's Prudential Authority (PA) needs a review and implementation of rigorous processes that should precede such decisions by banks. Avoidance of a fine by the PA should never override the economic and social impact of arbitrary bank account closures, especially for businesses with no court cases or are linked to corruption, as in the case withDr Iqbal Survé and Independent Media. The Competition Tribunal hearing in September 2022 noted no evidence of criminal conduct by Independent Media, Survé, and his associated companies.

Furthermore, both writers seem driven by personal vendetta and hatred towards Dr Iqbal Survé, a significant shareholder in Independent Media. Their biases cloud their judgement, causing them to overlook the societal implications of arbitrary account closures – while targeting Survé with their venomous pens. Their lack of empathy towards those facing job losses and their readiness to promote personal grievances over ethics is deeply disappointing.

The writers' prioritisation of corporate interests over transparency, fairness, and empathy sets a dangerous precedent. Today it's Independent Media; tomorrow, it could be any organisation at odds with powerful interests. Such a path would erode trust, destabilise the business environment, and corrode society's democratic fabric. The unproven "reputational damage" argument and "fines" cannot trump the loss of thousands of jobs and tax revenue.

In their misguided attempts to criticise Sekunjalo Group, Independent Media, and Survé, Roper and Crotty miss the broader point: Arbitrary actions by powerful institutions threaten democratic values. Their support for arbitrary closures of bank accounts endorses unchecked corporate power. A society that allows this unchecked power risks losing the very freedoms and rights that define it.

We must reject Roper and Crotty's views as not merely wrong but as an insult to the very essence of democracy. Their willingness to undermine public sentiment, media freedom, and the well-being of fellow journalists in favour of corporate interests and personal biases is a disheartening reflection of their journalistic integrity. Crotty and Roper have proven to be advocates for unjust corporate power and enemies of media freedom.

South Africa must not allow itself to be led down this dangerous path. The arbitrary closure of bank accounts is not a tool to be wielded without consideration of the consequences; it's a dangerous weapon that must be handled with the utmost caution, with guardrails to avoid abuse. In a world that values democracy, transparency, and justice, there is no room for arbitrary actions that threaten to undermine the very foundations of our democratic society.

* The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.

#fic

Court order a significant victory for Sekunjalo

Victory for Sekunjalo as FIC and banks are compelled to show and tell

Crotty and Roper: Advocates for unjust corporate power or enemies of media freedom?