By Sipho Tshabalala
When news broke that Naspers Limited had donated R2 million to the African National Congress (ANC) during the fourth quarter of the 2024 political funding cycle, there was a deafening silence from the very quarters that should have been ringing the alarm bells. This revelation, published in the Electoral Commission’s latest disclosure report, should have sparked outrage, but instead, it has gone largely unchallenged. The reason? The uncomfortable truth is that a media conglomerate with a history deeply intertwined with the apartheid regime is now funnelling money into the very political system it is supposed to report on objectively.
Media’s Role in a Democracy: A Brief Reminder
At the heart of any functioning democracy is a free and independent media—a watchdog that holds power to account, reports the truth, and provides citizens with the information they need to make informed decisions. Media outlets are supposed to stand apart from political affiliations, ensuring their coverage is unbiased and fair. Yet, the Naspers donation raises serious questions about the ethical boundaries between media and political power in South Africa.
A Conflict of Interest: Naspers and the ANC
Naspers owns Media24, which includes News24 among its many titles. News24, one of South Africa’s most influential news platforms, is expected to provide impartial coverage of all political entities, including the ANC. However, how can we trust the objectivity of a media outlet when its parent company is financially supporting one of the major political players? This isn’t just a potential conflict of interest; it’s a direct challenge to the integrity of the media as a neutral entity.
To understand the gravity of this situation, one needs to consider the history of Naspers. Originally, Naspers served as a mouthpiece for the apartheid regime, with figures like Hendrik Verwoerd and DF Malan—both architects of apartheid—once serving as editors of its newspapers. Koos Bekker, a former CEO of Naspers and still influential on its board, is another figure whose ties to the old regime raise eyebrows. His father, Cornelius “Cor” Jansen Bekker, held a senior position in the Bureau of State Security, the very apparatus that maintained apartheid’s iron grip on South Africa.
On the other side of this equation is the ANC, a former liberation movement that fought tooth and nail against the very regime Naspers once supported. In any other context, these two entities would seem like polar opposites—oil and water. Yet, they have found common ground, not in ideology, but in the current political landscape shaped by President Cyril Ramaphosa.
The Ramaphosa Connection: Power, Money, and Influence
The threads linking Naspers and the ANC become more visible when you consider Ramaphosa’s role. Before ascending to the presidency, Ramaphosa was the head of Shanduka, a company where Phuthi Mahanyele, now the CEO of Naspers, once held a leadership role. This connection is far from coincidental. Ramaphosa’s rise to the ANC presidency was fueled by an enormous financial campaign, the infamous CR17, backed by South Africa’s most powerful businesspeople—many of whom have benefited from apartheid’s legacy.
The implication here is clear: Naspers, like many other corporate giants, has a vested interest in ensuring that the ANC, under Ramaphosa’s leadership, remains in power. This isn’t about supporting a political party for ideological reasons; it’s about securing influence and shaping the country’s future in a way that benefits big business. The ultimate goal? A coalition between the ANC and the Democratic Alliance (DA), a party that, on its own, would struggle to secure a majority but could govern through a partnership with a Ramaphosa-led ANC.
A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: The Media as a Political Actor
In this scenario, Naspers’ role isn’t just as a donor; it becomes a player in the political game, leveraging its media assets to support a specific political agenda. News24, far from being a neutral observer, risks becoming a public relations machine for the ANC under Ramaphosa, much like how Naspers’ publications once promoted apartheid leaders to secure their hold on power.
The disturbing continuity here is hard to ignore. Just as Naspers once helped apartheid leaders like Verwoerd and Malan to win elections and maintain a system of oppression, it now seems to be using its resources to shape the political landscape in favour of a ruling party that aligns with its interests. The script, it appears, has not changed—only the actors and the context.
The Unravelling of Media Ethics
The donation from Naspers to the ANC is more than just a questionable act; it’s a direct assault on the ethical foundation of journalism. When media houses become funders of political parties, they lose their credibility as impartial reporters of the truth. The line between reporting and politicking blurs, leaving the public in a dangerous position where the news they consume may be more about manipulation than information.
For the sake of democracy, Naspers should return the donation and reaffirm its commitment to unbiased journalism. Anything less is a betrayal of the very principles that should guide the media in a free society. The ANC, too, should reject such donations with a clear message: South Africa is not for sale, and neither is its media.
* Sipho Tshabalala is an indepedent writer, analyst, and political commentator.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of or Independent Media.
