South Africa’s political landscape is shifting almost by the hour. The gloves are off in a power struggle that pits the president, Jacob Zuma, against a group of reformers led by the finance minister, Pravin Gordhan. It is a high-stakes drama that has profound implications for the country’s beleaguered economy at a time when the international rating agencies are circling, smelling blood.
In a potentially seminal moment in this unfolding soap opera, the deputy finance minister, Mcebisi Jonas, has issued an extraordinary public statement claiming that a business group close to the president offered him the job of finance minister late last year.
At the heart of the political economy that now surrounds Zuma, and which Gordhan has set out his stall to confront, lies the infamous Gupta family – Indian expats with wide-ranging business interests spanning tech, mining, uranium and the media.
Jonas’ statement said he was contacted by the Guptas and offered the finance ministry job before Zuma summarily dismissed Nhlanhla Nene, the respected incumbent, in December and replaced him with a rank non-entity ANC backbencher, David van Rooyen. The fall-out was so shocking that local reporters and commentators now refer to it as “9/12”.
Jonas says he declined the offer out of hand because only the president has the constitutional authority to appoint cabinet ministers.
Pro-democracy group the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution said his disclosure showed the extent to which the country is under threat from a patronage network that has grown ever more insidious since Zuma came to power in 2009.
To understand the significance of the moment, it is necessary to take at least two steps back.
Like Brazil and Russia, South Africa’s ANC-led government has struggled to offer convincing evidence that it has not run out of ideas in the fight against structural economic constraints which limit the prospects for the growth needed to reduce poverty and inequality.
This growing gap between haves and have-nots threatens stability and adds to the sense of social precariousness and racial unease increasingly at play in Africa’s second-biggest economy.
The international investment community and other market analysts have looked on as South Africa dug itself ever deeper into a rut, asking what it might take for the country to propel itself ahead of other emerging market economies.
The answer came, ironically, from Zuma himself. Regarded as a large part of the problem because he has allowed himself to be captured by vested commercial interests, such as the Guptas, it was Zuma who dropped the bombshell on 9/12. The ripple effects will be felt for a long time to come.
First, it woke up the “silent majority” within the ANC’s moderate middle and social democratic left. Asked on the evening of Nene’s dismissal what the ANC thought of the decision, ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe replied: “The ANC has no comment because the ANC was not consulted.”
This was the first of a number of seminal, game-changing moments. Mantashe, a key powerbroker within the ruling party, and crucial to the organisational structures and power that will determine who succeeds Zuma, was furious. It was immediately apparent that Zuma had made an enormous political error of judgement.
Never mind the reaction of the markets, which for the remaining two days of that tumultuous week battered the currency and South African bonds. Zuma had committed a cardinal sin. He had failed to consult the fellow leaders of his party, showing just how desperate he was to please his benefactors and serve his own interests.
Nene had stood up to Zuma on a number of highly controversial issues, including restructuring and governance of the state-owned airline South African Airways and the procurement of nuclear power, where Zuma, his relatives and friends, such as the Guptas, have vested interests that need protection.
As a result Nene was fired and replaced by a political weakling who would be beholden to Zuma and, apparently, the Guptas. On his first and – so it would turn out – only day in the National Treasury, Van Rooyen turned up with two advisers in the pay of the Gupta family.
Within four days Zuma had been forced to replace Van Rooyen with Gordhan, who served as finance minister during Zuma’s first administration between 2009 and 2014. Senior ANC leaders, such as Mantashe and the increasingly influential treasurer-general, Zweli Mkhize, had made it clear to Zuma that what he had done was politically unacceptable.
So Gordhan returned to the treasury with far stronger political backing than previously, and remains all but unsackable. Going into the new year the country was asking: who runs the government - the president or the finance minister?
Within minutes of Zuma’s state of the nation address on February 11, the answer was clear. The treasury was back at the helm.
Gordhan’s budget speech that followed shortly afterwards was a political masterpiece. He managed to do enough to suggest that South Africa would avoid a rating agency downgrade to junk status – at least until December. He also offered glimpses of the sort of innovation needed to propel a stubbornly sluggish economy towards growth.
It was an act of political leadership. Gordhan made it clear that state-owned enterprises would be reformed and new rules brought in to prevent “predatory” attempts to capture state institutions for the purposes of self-enrichment.
In response, Zuma resorted to type. He reignited an old investigation against Gordhan over a so-called “rogue” unit established by the South African tax service while he was commissioner more than a decade ago. Using loyal placemen at the revenue services and the Hawks, a specialist investigative unit within the police, Zuma has waged a proxy war against Gordhan for nearly a month.
Gordhan seems to be up for the fight. He refused to answer the 27 questions that the Hawks sent to him until he was ready to do so, saying he could not be distracted from either his preparations for the budget nor a whirlwind roadshow in which he met investors, fund managers and market analysts in London, New York and Boston.
Two days after his budget speech the Hawks leaked information about their investigation of Gordhan, clearly an attempt to undermine the finance minister who has emerged as the head of a reformist, progressive consortium within the government and the ANC that is opposed to Zuma..
In response to the leak, the ANC heavyweights responded with unusual speed. Mantashe provided a public statement of unequivocal support for Gordhan, indicating just how the balance of power is shifting away from Zuma.
But in this high-stakes game of chicken, both sides have to step carefully along the tightrope that lies ahead of them towards the ANC’s national conference at the end of 2017 when the next ANC leader – and hence the country’s next president – will be chosen.
Any misstep could lead to disaster. If Zuma refuses to give ground, Gordhan may have to resign or push harder, forcing the president into a corner where he may be forced to lash out and cause even more collateral damage.
If Zuma pushes back too hard against Gordhan, or fires him, then the ANC heavyweights may have to lead a full revolt against Zuma that would lead to his “recall” – the fate that befell former president Thabo Mbeki in September 2008, when the ANC leadership ruled that he should resign after a court judgment suggesting he had interfered in a prosecution of Zuma himself.
The charges against Zuma were suddenly dropped in March 2009, a month before he was elected president. This decision is currently before the courts, and if it goes against him it would be another wound in his side.
With the ANC’s electoral domination likely to be challenged for the first time in important cities such as Johannesburg, Pretoria and Port Elizabeth in municipal elections in the middle of the year, it may be that the party will face the prospect of removing Zuma ahead of the end of his term – as ANC president in 2017 and South African president in 2019.
Zuma will fight to the very end; that much is clear. Jonas’s act of principled leadership is a further milestone in a gripping political narrative and adds significantly to the case against the president. Thanks for reading.
Four Britons 'held in Kenya for taking pictures at airport'
Four Britons have been detained in Kenya on suspicion of terror offences after taking pictures in an airport, according to reports.
The men were arrested in Nairobi and taken for questioning after sparking the terror alert on 12 March, the Sun said.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: “We are in contact with Kenyan authorities following the arrest of four British nationals and are ready to provide consular assistance.”
The men, named as Ian Glover, 46, Steve Gibson, 60, Eddie Swift and Paul Abbott, both 47, are said to have been taking photos of planes taking off at Nairobi’s Wilson airport while they sat in a bar.
It is understood they thought they had been granted permission from airport officials, but were arrested by police.
The four appeared in court on Monday and were remanded in custody for a week charged with using a mobile phone app to monitor flights and trespassing, the Sun said.
Swift’s brother, Peter, told the newspaper: “Eddie and his mates are just chaps who like taking pictures of planes. It’s a very worrying time.”
He added: “It’s blindingly obvious they weren’t doing anyone any harm and weren’t plotting anything. None of them would harm a fly.” Thanks for reading
Many Egyptian pilgrims killed in Saudi Arabia bus crash
At least 19 people have been killed and 25 injured after a bus filled with Egyptian pilgrims crashed in Saudi Arabia, according to Egyptian media reports.
The bus was carrying 43 Egyptians and a driver whose nationality is not yet known when it overturned, Mena, Egypt’s state news agency, reported. The passengers included two children, Egypt’s tourism ministry said.
The bus is reported to have been travelling on a road between Medina and Mecca at the time of the crash. Pilgrims were performing umrah, a smaller Muslim pilgrimage that, unlike the annual hajj pilgrimage, can be done at any time of the year.
It comes just days after 16 Palestinian pilgrims were killed when their bus crashed in a remote southern area of Jordan on its way from the West Bank to Saudi Arabia.
. Thanks for reading
The bus was carrying 43 Egyptians and a driver whose nationality is not yet known when it overturned, Mena, Egypt’s state news agency, reported. The passengers included two children, Egypt’s tourism ministry said.
The bus is reported to have been travelling on a road between Medina and Mecca at the time of the crash. Pilgrims were performing umrah, a smaller Muslim pilgrimage that, unlike the annual hajj pilgrimage, can be done at any time of the year.
It comes just days after 16 Palestinian pilgrims were killed when their bus crashed in a remote southern area of Jordan on its way from the West Bank to Saudi Arabia.
. Thanks for reading
Paris attacks: Abdeslam's trial could lift lid on secret world of Isis
With Salah Abdeslam possibly set to appear before a judge in Brussels as early as Saturday, the key issue will be the extradition of the 26-year-old alleged extremist to France. President François Hollande has already said French authorities will request that Abdeslam stands trial in the city where he is suspected of having helped the men who killed 130 people in shootings at bars, restaurants and at the Bataclan concert hall. According to the French newspaper Le Monde Abdeslam, a French national who grew up in Brussels, will almost certainly appear before a French judge or judges, charged with some of the most serious crimes in local law. The trial will be an extraordinary one, potentially revealing a wealth of information about both the attacks in Paris, the Islamic State and radical networks in Molenbeek, the Brussels neighbourhood where Abdeslam was found. The area is seen – wrongly according to some – as a hotbed of extremism. But before the trial will come the questioning. Police believe Abdeslam, the only survivor among the Paris attackers, rented two cars involved in the attacks under his real name, booked hotel rooms, escorted by car the three suicide bombers who blew themselves up at the Stade de France and may have planned his own suicide attack in the 18th arrondissement of Paris. Belgian police, and probably security services, as well as their French counterparts will be first in line but there will be a long queue of other services waiting to either talk to the former mechanic or at least receive transcripts of, or briefings on his statements. Many will have questions of their own to pose. It is rare that a violent extremist involved so deeply in such a prominent attack has been detained, let alone tried in a normal court of law, particularly in Europe. There have been many trials of extremists whose plots were thwarted by security services, but the prevalence of suicide attacks, and the decision of other militants to seek “death by police” has meant that detentions and trials have largely been limited to peripheral members of any networks which actually fulfil their violence ambitions. Abdeslam, whose elder brother was killed in the Paris attacks, did not travel to Syria but may know what happened in the Isis training camps where the plot to attack the French capital took shape. Was it commissioned by Isis leaders who had been looking to strike Europe for some time? Was the high command’s involvement and support more opportunistic, coming after the Belgian and French attackers suggested such an operation? Any answers may give indicate whether attacks in Europe are integral to the strategic vision of Isis or more dependent on resources – such as a brigade of Belgians and French volunteers – available at any one time. That brigade has now been disbanded, after suffering heavy casualties, reports from Syria and statements from western intelligence officials indicate. The former bar owner may be able to answer vital questions about networks in Belgium or further afield in Europe. He may also know how the attackers reached France from Syria. Will Abdeslam talk at all? Even hardened militants do often give information eventually. Abdeslam’s profile, his apparent failure to go through with a suicide bombing, his confusion and fear after the attack, as well as his back story in Molenbeek, indicates that he may not be too hard for interrogators to crack. Thanks for reading.
Paris attacks suspect Salah Abdeslam will fight extradition
Salah Abdeslam, the prime suspect in the Paris attacks, will fight his extradition to France, a legal challenge that could delay his trial over the massacre.
Abdeslam’s lawyer, Sven Mary, said his client had been formally charged in connection with the Paris attacks and was “collaborating” with Belgian investigators but would challenge his extradition to France.
After spending 10 minutes with the suspect, a 26-year-old former tram driver, Mary said: “France has demanded his extradition. I can tell you that we will refuse extradition to France. We will first see whether the European arrest warrant is legal.”
Legal experts cautioned that Abdeslam’s refusal did not mean extradition would fail as under the European arrest warrant anyone who commits a serious offence in the EU can be sent back to face justice in the country where the crime took place.
Florence Rouas-Elbazis, a French lawyer, told Agence France-Presse: “It is not because he refuses that he cannot be handed over, but it could lead to an additional delay.”
Abdeslam was arrested on Friday in the Brussels suburb of Molenbeek where he grew up. He became the most wanted man in Europe after going into hiding shortly after the bombings and shootings in Paris on 13 November that left 130 people dead.
An accomplice arrested with him, believed to be Amine Choukri, has been similarly charged with “terrorist killings and participating in the activities of a terrorist group”.
The French prime minister, Manuel Valls, welcomed Abdeslam’s arrest but said the terror threat remained “very high”. “As high as, if not higher than, we had before 13 November,” Valls added.
“Other networks, other cells, other individuals in France and in Europe are getting organised to prepare new attacks. We must remain mobilised at a national as well as European level.”
Abdeslam was officially charged with “with participation in terrorist murder” and in the activities of a terrorist organisation.
A four-month international manhunt came to an end on Friday when heavily armed Belgian police tracked Abdeslam to an apartment in Molenbeek, Brussels, 500 metres from where he grew up. As the suspect fled with a man believed to be an accomplice, he was shot in the leg.
Abdeslam appeared before a judge on Saturday and details emerged of how police finally caught the Belgian, thought to be the only surviving member of a 10-strong cell linked to Islamic State that carried out the attacks on the French capital.
Belgian police raided a flat in another Brussels suburb, Forest, on Tuesday, in which a suspected accomplice, Mohamed Belkaid, was killed by a special forces sniper. A black Isis flag and Kalashnikov was found near his body. Two men fled the flat, reportedly escaping on to the roof, but inside forensic experts found Abdeslam’s fingerprint on a glass.
Shortly afterwards, the fugitive called a friend saying he needed somewhere to stay. The friend alerted the police, who put an immediate trace on the mobile telephone number that Abdeslam had given. From then, it was only a matter of time.
Police traced the mobile and tracked the suspect to the apartment in Molenbeek where he was staying with another friend and three members of the friend’s family, who were also arrested on Friday. The four others also appeared before a judge.
The French president, François Hollande, called an emergency defence council meeting of ministers at the Elysée Palace on Saturday, after which the interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, said the arrest was “an important blow against the terrorist organisation Daesh [Islamic State] in Europe”.
Cazeneuve said: “This operation has removed the threat of several individuals who have proven themselves extremely dangerous and totally determined.”
Hollande said that the French authorities would seek a “rapid” extradition of Abdeslam. Hollande said: “I am sure the French legal authorities will very quickly issue an extradition request ... and the Belgian authorities will respond as favourably as possible, as quickly as possible.”
Hollande has said he would meet representatives of the victims’ families on Monday.
Belgium’s prime minister, Charles Michel, told a news conference that Abdeslam’s extradition to France could take “several weeks”.
While French ministers were quick to praise the work of Belgian police, a war of words between the two countries broke out on Saturday.
Belgian prime minister Charles Michel at a press conference after a state national security council meeting.
Alain Marsaud, a member of the former French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s centre right party, Les Républicains, and a former anti-terrorist judge, accused the Belgian authorities of naivety.
Marsaud said: “Their naivety cost us 130 lives. I am disgusted by the inability of the Belgians to solve the problem [of radicalisation] over the last few months, last few years,” he told the Belgian newspaper Le Soir
“I can’t help be astonished. How did it take four months to arrest one of the organisers of the attacks, when it turns out he remained within a very small area of Brussels? Perhaps I’m wrong and things were more complicated ... but we have to question the ability of the Belgian intelligence and intervention services.”
Marsaud added he expected Belgium to “extradite Salah Abdeslam as quickly as possible”.
Marsaud said: “This long period he was on the run is not a great success for the Belgian intelligence services; either Salah Abdeslam is very clever or the Belgian services are rubbish, which seems more likely.”
In response, Belgium’s foreign minister, Didier Reynders, said: “We have to be realistic ... it is deplorable to be always looking for scapegoats.”
Michel said Abdeslam’s capture had not come about by chance, but was “the fruit of enormous work” that had mobilised between 300 and 400 investigators. “The fight against the terrorist threat will continue,” he said.
Abdeslam Salah, suspected of being involved in the Paris attacks.
Investigators believe Abdeslam was supposed to have blown himself up after driving suicide bombers to the Stade de France football stadium where the first of several coordinated attacks was due to happen.
A suicide vest was later found in a dustbin in a district in north Paris not far from an abandoned VW Golf, linked to the terror cell. The theory was given further weight by an Isis statement claiming responsibility for the Paris attacks that mentioned a bombing in the French capital’s 18th arrondissement. There was no such bombing.
Abdeslam is known to have telephoned two accomplices in Belgium in the hours after the attacks on 13 November. The two men drove from Brussels, picked him up, and drove back to the Belgian capital, where he disappeared. The vehicle in which Abdeslam was travelling was reportedly stopped by French police twice en route, but allowed to continue.
On Saturday, a Belgian federal prosecutor Eric Van Der Sypt said: “If he starts talking, then I presume it will mean he stays longer in Belgium ... Sooner or later he will be extradited to France.”
French and Belgian anti-terrorism officials have planned a conference call during which Abdeslam’s extradition is expected to be discussed and agreed, according to Thierry Werts, a spokesperson for Belgium’s federal prosecutor’s office.
A 2002 EU agreement accelerated the extradition process between member states. Under the old system, the request had to be made at state level, now a judicial request is made. For particularly serious crimes, including alleged terrorism, the process can be fast-tracked.
Anti-terrorist police will be hoping Abdeslam can shed light on the previously unknown Algerian gunman, Belkaid, linked to the Paris attacks. Belkaid was shot on Tuesday in the Belgian police raid that led officers to Abdeslam.
In exclusive documents given to Associated Press by the Syrian opposition news site Zama al-Wsl, Belkaid described how he traveled throughout Europe and had had no experience as a jihadi as he crossed into Syria on 19 April 2014.
On Friday, officials said Belkaid was “most probably” an Abdeslam accomplice whose fake Belgian ID was used to pay for the hideout of the Paris attacks ringleader. Thanks for reading.
American soldier killed by 'indirect fire' near Isis stronghold of Mosul in Iraq
An American service member who was part of the US-led coalition fighting Islamic State, also referred to as Isis, was killed on Saturday in northern Iraq, according to an American defense official.
A US official said the soldier was stationed at the Makhmour base outside the Isis-held city of Mosul. The attack was an “indirect fire attack,” specifically rockets, the official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity as he wasn’t authorized to brief the media. Two Iraqi commanders stationed at the base also reported a rocket attack Saturday, but denied anyone had been hurt or killed. The US-led coalition reports that as Iraqi troops have built up at Makhmour in preparation for an assault on Mosul, the frequency of indirect fire attacks there has increased. The last US service member killed due to hostile enemy fire in Iraq was in 2011, though the last service member killed in the country was in October 2015. An earlier statement put out by the US military said the service member died as a result of “enemy action”. In October, Master Sgt Joshua Wheeler, 39, of Roland, Oklahoma, became the first American to die in combat in Iraq since 2011, when he was killed during an overnight mission to rescue hostages held by Isis militants. In Syria, air strikes on the northern city of Raqqa on Saturday killed at least 39 people and wounded many others, according to the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. It was not immediately clear what country’s warplanes carried out the airstrikes: the Syrian regime, Russia, and the US, Jordan and their coalition allies have been carrying out strikes on Syria, albeit prioritizing different targets. An anti-Isis activist group, Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently, said the airstrikes were by Russian warplanes, adding that they have killed 43 civilians and wounded about 50 others. A third opposition monitoring group, the Local Coordination Committees (LCC) said the air raids were carried out by Syrian government warplanes. The three groups said the air raids struck near the national hospital, a former army base and other neighborhoods. Russia has been conducting air raids in Syria since 30 September, even though Russia this week drew down its military presence in Syria after Vladimir Putin ordered a partial pullout of Russian aircraft and forces from Syria, in support of indirect peace talks in Geneva. On Thursday, Putin said Moscow would keep enough forces in Syria to continue the fight against Isis, the Nusra Front and other extremist organizations. Isis, which occupies Raqqa as a de facto capital, is not included in the truce that was brokered by Russia and the US that went into effect on 27 February, and led to a drop of violence in Syria. The air raids come at a time when Isis has lost large swaths of territory in northern Syria, including in Raqqa province, in battles with the US-backed predominantly Kurdish Syria Democratic Forces. To the south, Syrian troops are on the offensive in an attempt to capture the ancient town of Palmyra, which has been under Isis control since May. The Observatory and the LCC reported airstrikes on the town that is home to some of the world’s most precious archaeological sites. Several of those sites have already been damaged or destroyed by the extremists. The Observatory said seven Isis fighters were killed in the airstrikes on Palmyra on Saturday. Isis, which in June 2014 declared a caliphate in areas it controls in Syria and Iraq, has been under pressure in Iraq as well over the past few months. The United States estimates that as of February, Isis fields 19,000 to 25,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria down from an estimated 20,000 to 31,500 frontline fighters a number that was based on intelligence reports from May to August 2014. A US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the estimates, said the decrease reflects the combined effects of battlefield deaths, desertions, internal disciplinary actions, recruiting shortfalls and difficulties that foreign fighters face traveling to Syria. Syria’s five-year civil war has killed more than 250,000 and displaced half the country’s population. Thanks for reading.
A US official said the soldier was stationed at the Makhmour base outside the Isis-held city of Mosul. The attack was an “indirect fire attack,” specifically rockets, the official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity as he wasn’t authorized to brief the media. Two Iraqi commanders stationed at the base also reported a rocket attack Saturday, but denied anyone had been hurt or killed. The US-led coalition reports that as Iraqi troops have built up at Makhmour in preparation for an assault on Mosul, the frequency of indirect fire attacks there has increased. The last US service member killed due to hostile enemy fire in Iraq was in 2011, though the last service member killed in the country was in October 2015. An earlier statement put out by the US military said the service member died as a result of “enemy action”. In October, Master Sgt Joshua Wheeler, 39, of Roland, Oklahoma, became the first American to die in combat in Iraq since 2011, when he was killed during an overnight mission to rescue hostages held by Isis militants. In Syria, air strikes on the northern city of Raqqa on Saturday killed at least 39 people and wounded many others, according to the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. It was not immediately clear what country’s warplanes carried out the airstrikes: the Syrian regime, Russia, and the US, Jordan and their coalition allies have been carrying out strikes on Syria, albeit prioritizing different targets. An anti-Isis activist group, Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently, said the airstrikes were by Russian warplanes, adding that they have killed 43 civilians and wounded about 50 others. A third opposition monitoring group, the Local Coordination Committees (LCC) said the air raids were carried out by Syrian government warplanes. The three groups said the air raids struck near the national hospital, a former army base and other neighborhoods. Russia has been conducting air raids in Syria since 30 September, even though Russia this week drew down its military presence in Syria after Vladimir Putin ordered a partial pullout of Russian aircraft and forces from Syria, in support of indirect peace talks in Geneva. On Thursday, Putin said Moscow would keep enough forces in Syria to continue the fight against Isis, the Nusra Front and other extremist organizations. Isis, which occupies Raqqa as a de facto capital, is not included in the truce that was brokered by Russia and the US that went into effect on 27 February, and led to a drop of violence in Syria. The air raids come at a time when Isis has lost large swaths of territory in northern Syria, including in Raqqa province, in battles with the US-backed predominantly Kurdish Syria Democratic Forces. To the south, Syrian troops are on the offensive in an attempt to capture the ancient town of Palmyra, which has been under Isis control since May. The Observatory and the LCC reported airstrikes on the town that is home to some of the world’s most precious archaeological sites. Several of those sites have already been damaged or destroyed by the extremists. The Observatory said seven Isis fighters were killed in the airstrikes on Palmyra on Saturday. Isis, which in June 2014 declared a caliphate in areas it controls in Syria and Iraq, has been under pressure in Iraq as well over the past few months. The United States estimates that as of February, Isis fields 19,000 to 25,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria down from an estimated 20,000 to 31,500 frontline fighters a number that was based on intelligence reports from May to August 2014. A US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the estimates, said the decrease reflects the combined effects of battlefield deaths, desertions, internal disciplinary actions, recruiting shortfalls and difficulties that foreign fighters face traveling to Syria. Syria’s five-year civil war has killed more than 250,000 and displaced half the country’s population. Thanks for reading.
Hulk Hogan awarded $115m in Gawker sex tape lawsuit
Terry Bollea, the retired pro wrestler known as Hulk Hogan, has been awarded $115m in his invasion of privacy suit against Gawker Media in a verdict that may re-shape how the media covers celebrities in the future.
The six person jury – four women and two men – deliberated for nearly six hours before delivering their verdict to the court in St Petersburg, Florida. Hogan, who was wearing his trademark black bandana, broke down in tears as the verdict was read. His shoulders shook as he sobbed; his hands, wiping tears from his face, were shaking too. The pro-wrestler was comforted by a member of his legal team.
Over a nearly two-week trial, jurors heard how Hogan, 62, had not been contacted by the website Gawker before it posted a nine-second video clip of the wrestler in flagrante with the wife of his friend, DJ Bubba “The Love Sponge” Clem.
Gawker founder Nick Denton seemed resolute in seeking to have the verdict overruled on appeal. “Given key evidence and the most important witness were both improperly withheld from this jury, we all knew the appeals court will need to resolve the case,” he said in a statement.
“I want to thank our lawyers for their outstanding work and am confident that we would have prevailed at trial if we had been allowed to present the full case to the jury,” the statement continued. “That’s why we feel very positive about the appeal that we have already begun preparing, as we expect to win this case ultimately.”
A spokesperson for Hogan’s legal team said: “We’re exceptionally happy with the verdict. We think it represents a statement as to the public’s disgust with the invasion of privacy disguised as journalism. The verdict says no more.”
Even the original $100m demanded in damages by Hogan would have been more money than Gawker Media has on hand, and some have speculated that a big loss in Florida would force them into bankruptcy. There will be a brief second phase of the trial where the court can demand even more money in punitive damages.
Worse, under Florida law, Gawker will almost certainly have to put up the whole amount as bond while awaiting its appeal, though the appellate judge could put a hold on that process while waiting to hear the case.
Partially to bolster itself against this eventuality, in January, Gawker sold a minority stake to Columbus Nova Technology Partners, an investment fund with deep pockets and several billion dollars in assets.
Throughout the trial, Hogan’s lawyers maintained the exposure had caused him suffering. Lawyers for the defendant argue that Hogan was used to publicizing his sexual escapades and it was unclear in which character he was in at the time – Hulk Hogan or Terry Bollea.
Earlier in the day, Bollea listened impassively to closing arguments.
Kenneth Turkel, a lawyer for Hogan, told jurors Gawker editors had not even had the “common decency” to call Hogan for comment before they posted the video. Turkel walked jurors through Hogan’s case: that his right to privacy was gratuitously compromised by Gawker, that his reputation was materially compromised, and that he suffered emotional distress of “outrageous intensity and duration”. Turkel accused Gawker founder Nick Denton of “playing God over Bollea’s right to privacy” and offered a meditation on how celebrity affects expectations of privacy. Denton, Turkel said, had effectively argued that losing privacy is a freeing experience because “you don’t worry about anything else because someone has taken your private life and put it out there”. The 10-day trial was full of salacious details but the core issue spoke to a serious first amendment issue: did Gawker have the right to post one minute and 41 seconds of the sex tape, approximately nine seconds of which featured actual sexual content? Hogan’s lawyers said the gratuitous nature of Gawker’s decision exempted the media firm from constitutional protection. Lawyers for Gawker argued that publication was a legitimate scoop because Hogan had talked openly about his sex life before, including on Howard Stern’s radio show. The company had warned that if Hogan won the case, the decision could not only destroy the company but cripple press freedom. But Hogan’s lawyer dismissed that line, arguing that there was only one reason for posting the tape: to build traffic and sell ads after a five-month news “dry spell”. During the trial, lawyers sparred over the actual value of the post to Gawker, with Hogan’s lawyers estimating the sex tape was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Gawker maintains the post was worth just $11,000. Gawker obtained the tape without knowing its exact origin. The editor involved said the post was intended as a commentary on celebrity sex tapes. “What’s disturbing about Gawker is not what they do, but how proud they are of it,” said Hogan’s lawyer Turkel, who said the character of the intrusion was an accurate “reflection of its owner Nick Denton”. Thanks for reading.
Kenneth Turkel, a lawyer for Hogan, told jurors Gawker editors had not even had the “common decency” to call Hogan for comment before they posted the video. Turkel walked jurors through Hogan’s case: that his right to privacy was gratuitously compromised by Gawker, that his reputation was materially compromised, and that he suffered emotional distress of “outrageous intensity and duration”. Turkel accused Gawker founder Nick Denton of “playing God over Bollea’s right to privacy” and offered a meditation on how celebrity affects expectations of privacy. Denton, Turkel said, had effectively argued that losing privacy is a freeing experience because “you don’t worry about anything else because someone has taken your private life and put it out there”. The 10-day trial was full of salacious details but the core issue spoke to a serious first amendment issue: did Gawker have the right to post one minute and 41 seconds of the sex tape, approximately nine seconds of which featured actual sexual content? Hogan’s lawyers said the gratuitous nature of Gawker’s decision exempted the media firm from constitutional protection. Lawyers for Gawker argued that publication was a legitimate scoop because Hogan had talked openly about his sex life before, including on Howard Stern’s radio show. The company had warned that if Hogan won the case, the decision could not only destroy the company but cripple press freedom. But Hogan’s lawyer dismissed that line, arguing that there was only one reason for posting the tape: to build traffic and sell ads after a five-month news “dry spell”. During the trial, lawyers sparred over the actual value of the post to Gawker, with Hogan’s lawyers estimating the sex tape was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Gawker maintains the post was worth just $11,000. Gawker obtained the tape without knowing its exact origin. The editor involved said the post was intended as a commentary on celebrity sex tapes. “What’s disturbing about Gawker is not what they do, but how proud they are of it,” said Hogan’s lawyer Turkel, who said the character of the intrusion was an accurate “reflection of its owner Nick Denton”. Thanks for reading.
