Bell Pottinger: South African opposition calls for harsher punishment

Opposition politicians and campaigners in
South Africa are pushing for harsher
punishment of the British public relations
agency Bell Pottinger for running a campaign
to deliberately stoke racial tensions in the
country.
Bell Pottinger was expelled on Monday from
the UK’s Public Relations and
Communications Association (PRCA), which
decided the campaign it ran for the Guptas –
a family of Indian-born tycoons who are
close to president Jacob Zuma – “was by any
reasonable standard of judgment likely to
inflame racial discord in South Africa”.
Zuma, who has been in power since 2009, is
president of the African National Congress,
which led the struggle to overthrow the
repressive apartheid regime and has been in
power since the country’s first free elections
in 1994.
The 75-year-old is expected to try to remain
in power as president of the country until
2019, when general elections are due, despite
hundreds of graft charges and widespread
criticism of his management of one of Africa’s
most important economies.
South Africa’s main opposition party, the
Democratic Alliance (DA), had complained to
the PRCA about the campaign, which
portrayed opponents of President Zuma as
agents of “white monopoly capital” and
coined slogans referring to “economic
apartheid”.
The aim was to deflect attention from the
corruption allegations levelled at the Guptas.
Such slogans gained traction in a country
where the white minority still wields
disproportionate economic power, two
decades after the end of apartheid, and were
widely relayed on social media and by some
activists and politicians.
Bell Pottinger was also accused of
orchestrating the creation of fake Twitter
accounts to target prominent white
businesspeople in South Africa to draw
attention away from the Gupta family.
“This ruling is by no means an indication that
Bell Pottinger is off the hook just yet,”
Phumzile van Damme, DA spokeswoman, said
on Tuesday . “Bell Pottinger must take
responsibility for their actions and disclose
all information regarding their Oakbay
Capital account and reinvest all monies from
their Oakbay account back into South Africa.”
Oakbay, the Gupta’s main holding company,
paid £100,000 a month for Bell Pottinger’s
services.
Sam Mkokeli, a journalist and chair of the
media freedom committee at the South
African National Editors Forum, said the
ruling was “a victory for the campaigning by
the South African media against the
proliferation of fake news and social media
bullying of journalists”, but said long-term
damage had been done.
“The ban on Bell Pottinger does not mean
what they have created in South Africa is
over. The evil tactics they have introduced
will be used as South Africa heads to national
elections in 2019.”
Political analyst Justice Malala tweeted: “The
action against #BellPottinger in UK
underlines SA’s lack of consequence. Their
paymasters, #Guptas and #Zuma , are free &
laughing in SA.”
Zuma only narrowly survived a recent vote of
confidence in parliament. On Tuesday, South
Africa’s constitutional court heard lawyers
for opposition parties argue that the
president should be removed from office for
lying to parliament.
The allegations of improper relations with the
Guptas have been fuelled by a leak of
thousands of emails sent by the family and
their employees.
These appear to substantiate at least some of
the charges against Zuma made by South
Africa’s official anti-graft ombudsman last
year, which centred on the accusation that
the Guptas exercised improper influence to
win government contracts, influenced
ministerial appointments and benefited from
perks only usually accorded to high-level
dignitaries.
The president’s son, Duduzane Zuma, a 35-
year-old businessman with a playboy
reputation, is alleged to be the key contact
between his father and the Gupta family. The
emails suggest the Guptas allegedly
contributed to the cost of Duduzane’s foreign
holidays, his 2015 wedding and helped him to
buy property.
Both Zuma senior and junior, and the Guptas
have denied any wrongdoing.
The expulsion of Bell Pottinger came into
effect on Tuesday for a minimum of five
years, after which the firm can reapply – the
harshest sanction possible.
In a statement, the agency, founded almost 30
years ago by Margaret Thatcher’s favourite
spin doctor Lord Bell, said it accepted there
were lessons to be learned, but disputed “the
basis on which the ruling was made”.
No stranger to controversy, Bell Pottinger’s
clients include Syrian first lady Asma al-
Assad and the Pinochet Foundation, which
promotes the legacy of the former Chilean
dictator.
Francis Ingham, the director general of the
PRCA, described Bell Pottinger’s work for the
Guptas as a “completely reprehensible piece
of work”.
Bell Pottinger resigned the Oakbay account in
April, saying at the time that it was the victim
of a smear campaign involving “totally false
and damaging accusations”.
In July, the firm’s chief executive, James
Henderson, issued an “unequivocal and
absolute” apology to anyone affected, fired
the lead partner involved in the campaign
and suspended another partner and two
other employees. On Monday, Henderson
resigned.
Andrew Silke, a South African commentator,
said the company’s actions had distracted
from the “forces of division ... at home”.
“It’s always pleasurable to blame a ‘colonial’
company for fuelling the fire – not to mention
seeing them face almost ruination ... But what
about those fomenting racial division back at
home? What about the racially charged
politics that has come to characterise the
clashes within South Africa between her
respective political parties, leaders and
contenders for power?” Silke wrote on the
Biznews.com website.

Tweet