By Gillian Schutte
Peter Fabricius’s article in Daily Maverick about Jacob Zuma’s relationship with the late leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, is a revealing exercise in neo-colonial propaganda, presenting African alliances as morally compromised while keeping silent on the ideological influences of Daily Maverick’s own American funding.
Using selective excerpts from Mathews Phosa’s memoir ‘Witness to Power’, Fabricius attempts to cast Zuma as a blemished mediator corrupted by Gaddafi’s financial support for the ANC in 2009, which Fabricius quickly notes may have tainted Zuma’s impartiality as a mediator in 2011. Yet, Phosa’s narrative, ironically, does not indict Zuma; instead, it shows a consistent diplomatic approach by Zuma that Fabricius disregards, preferring to twist Phosa’s words into Daily Maverick’s dubious framework. It’s a familiar methodology, fitting comfortably within the publication’s pathological obsession with critiquing African political relationships while shielding its own Western influences from scrutiny.
Fabricius fixates on Gaddafi’s financial support to the ANC, strongly suggesting that it morally compromised Zuma’s later diplomatic role in Libya. Phosa confirms that “the ANC did, under successive treasurers-general, receive donations from Gaddafi,” which Fabricius frames as a shocking revelation mired in inherent African amorality. Yet this financial support reflects Gaddafi’s long-standing Pan-Africanist solidarity, rooted in his vision of a self-determined continent free from Western control. In attempting to paint this support as corrupting, Daily Maverick, yet again, engages in selective critique, presenting African alliances as perpetually suspect, as though African solidarity is somehow less legitimate than Western influence.
Meanwhile, Daily Maverick itself benefits from US-based funding sources, such as the Open Society Foundations, without the same scrutiny. The irony is palpable: US funding carries far more ideological weight than the African solidarities it critiques, arriving with a clear agenda that aligns with American interests. For decades, organisations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID have funnelled money into global media and civil society with the aim of aggressively pushing narratives that favour US values and neoliberal economic principles. While such influence is a longstanding practice, Daily Maverick strategically leaves its audience uninformed of its own ideological entanglements, presenting itself as “independent” while aligning with Western perspectives on African affairs.
Equally obnoxious is the utter arrogance of the United States, which enforces strict transparency laws through the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). This mandates any person or organisation receiving foreign funds to declare those affiliations publicly. Yet, this transparency is not required of American organisations when operating abroad. US funding bodies are free to influence media outlets worldwide, shaping discourse that promotes American interests.
Fabricius’s article, focused on Gaddafi’s support for the ANC, conveniently sidesteps the fact that American funds—far more ideologically loaded—have far-reaching influence on South African media without equivalent scrutiny. The double standard is preposterous. African financial alliances are deemed ethically suspect, while American funds mould narratives without the same level of accountability.
Fabricius’s portrayal of Zuma’s relationship with Gaddafi is no less distorted. Phosa’s account shows that Zuma, far from playing a double game, tried to mediate between Gaddafi and opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril to avoid escalation. After meeting with Gaddafi, Zuma returned and stated that “Gaddafi was not amenable to discussions with what he regarded as terrorists.” Instead of showing betrayal, this statement reveals Zuma’s commitment to opening channels of dialogue, working to bridge divides rather than choosing sides.
Fabricius’s interpretation of Jibril’s frustration with Zuma as evidence of treacherous betrayal similarly obscures the facts. Phosa recounts Jibril’s growing mistrust, captured in his question, “Has Zuma changed?” Yet Jibril’s exasperation stemmed from Zuma’s refusal to unconditionally back the opposition, not from any supposed deceit. Fabricius frames this as a flaw in Zuma’s loyalty, ignoring that Phosa describes Zuma proposing a peace plan involving both sides—a diplomatic approach essential to genuine mediation. This insistence on balance, which frustrated Jibril, becomes for Fabricius a reason to doubt Zuma’s intentions, reflecting Daily Maverick’s propensity to cast African leaders in a one-dimensional moral framework.
This obvious selective focus reveals Daily Maverick’s broader neocolonial approach: African alliances are cast as suspicious unless they align with Western interests, while the publication’s own American funding remains unexamined. South Africa’s Political Party Funding Act (2018) requires political parties to disclose foreign donations exceeding R100,000, mandating a level of transparency and protecting against undue foreign influence. However, no such regulation applies to media outlets like Daily Maverick, which receive significant funds from American entities yet operate without transparency. While African political ties are scrutinised, Western-backed media are free to influence public discourse without equivalent accountability, creating a well-resourced system where certain interests shape narratives unchecked. This is tantamount to foreign interference, possibly bordering on terrorism. Not that this matters to Fabricius nor his Daily Maverick cronies.
What his article ultimately exposes is Daily Maverick’s ideological thuggery, not Zuma’s supposed duplicity.
It lays bare a publication way more invested in its monetised servitude to Western narratives than in honest critique. Rather than a balanced intellectual analysis, Fabricius offers a reductionist and deformed view of African leadership and diplomacy. He is clearly more invested in casting suspicion on African solidarities to deflect any examination of Western influence. This hackneyed approach speaks to Daily Maverick’s role as an ideological agent, serving to validate Western narratives about African political morality under the guise of “independent journalism.” The strategic framing in Fabricius’s article is not a product of accidental bias, but a deliberate choice to reinforce, package, and export a narrative that places African agency and resistance in a morally corrupt light simply because it does not conform to Western expectations.
In the end, Phosa’s memoir does not show Zuma as a traitor but as a consistent mediator, attempting to prevent conflict through balanced engagement with both sides. Fabricius’s embarrassing attempt to frame this as a betrayal collapses under close examination, exposing Daily Maverick’s vile preference for casting African solidarities as morally questionable while remaining conspicuously silent on the influence of its own Western backers. This, is not an exposé; it is an exercise in brutal neo-colonial bias, wielding a false moral high ground to frame African alliances in a dubious light. Fabricius’s article lays bare Daily Maverick’s role as an agent of Western-backed discourse, uncritically reinforcing an ideological agenda under the weak disguise of ethical journalism.
Far from a spilling of beans on Zuma, this article is an indictment of Daily Maverick’s role as a willing weapon in the ideological war against a sovereign Africa. It’s all about enforcing the shaping of African discourse to fit obediently within Western frames of morality and influence. A sorry excuse for critique, the only thing Peter Fabricius’s fabrication leaves in its wake is the stench of Daily Maverick’s own bottom-feeding diet of dubious duplicity.
* Gillian Schutte is a film-maker, social justice and race-justice activist and public intellectual.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or .
