The Registrar received a complaint against Radio 702 in regard to a news item followed up by an 
interview with the Complainant. The news item accused the recently published book of the Complainant, quoting a firm of auditors, KPMG, as amounting to fiction and as riddled with errors. Investec, a bank, also denied any knowledge of underhand dealings or having been a party to such dealings. The book deals with losses suffered by Randgold which were attributable to Brett Kebble, who had stolen R1, 6 billion Randgold shares and sold them for cash. According to the book, Investec was, unknowingly, involved in tremendous losses for Randgold shareholders that followed upon that sale by Kebble. It needs to be added that Kebble was murdered a few years ago.
Five days after the news item an interview with the author was broadcast. The author complains that he was not afforded a proper opportunity of replying to the accusations levelled against him in the news item, that he was accused of committing an offence by not disclosing his knowledge of who were involved in the planning of the murder of Kebble and, lastly, that the interviewer, in his opinion, was in cahoots with Investec and KPMG and that that contributed to the unfair interview.
The Tribunal held as follows:
1. When considering the interview as a whole, Mr Sergeant conveyed the enormous amount of research he had done and also demonstrated this well when he described the sale of Randgold shares, the huge loss suffered by Randgold shareholders and the roles of Investec and KPMG in this process. The accusation of “fiction” and “riddled with mistakes” was, at least, answered.
2. Mr Sergeant complains that Mr Whitfield accused him of a crime in not revealing details as to who were involved in the “conspiracy” to kill Brett Kebble. The answer to this is that no such accusation was made. Although the questioning about not disclosing the facts had an element of cross-examination to it, there was no accusation of wrongdoing. Interviews are, within a modern democracy, which claims to be built on transparency, often hard-hitting. To ask whether a person is not perverting the course of justice by not disclosing the identity or identities of persons, who conspired to murder another human being, is a perfectly permissible question. The mere posing of the question does not mean that a crime was committed by Mr Sergeant in not reporting the identities.
3. There was no basis for concluding that Mr. Whitfield was biased in his questioning or that he was, in any manner, in cahoots with KPMG or Investec. Tough questioning, as one finds in the matter of disclosure of identities at the end of the interview, is a typical feature of interviews and does not justify any inference of bias. The public has a right to know, and the interviewer is its mouthpiece.
The complaint was not upheld.