Why Piet Rampedi can take the nearest sho’t left straight to hell

Bolstered by an adoring Twitter following, the journalist defames whoever he wants, all while defending the highest journalistic principles without a hint of irony.


As I learnt from my recent battles with the SA alt-right, those who go on and on about supposed “fake news” and a lack of independence in the media are also, ironically, often the people who care least about facts.

While most of these mediocre conspiracy theorists hammer out their half-baked ideas from behind a laptop in their mothers’ basements, however, journalist Piet Rampedi does so as head of investigations of a major national newspaper, The Sunday Independent – albeit one which has had most of its credibility obliterated under the ownership of Dr Iqbal Survé, who uses it and his other publications as his own personal mouthpiece every time he’s accused of misconduct – which is fairly often.

Rampedi was once employed by the Sunday Times, but left after he was among those the media ombudsman found to have published “inaccurate, misleading, and unfair” stories about the so-called Sars “rogue unit”, an outcome that he has predictably since tried to pin on a media “cabal” which he believes writes everything they do under the instruction of Minister of Public Enterprises Pravin Gordhan.

In the employ of someone who clearly either doesn’t care about or agrees with everything he tweets, Rampedi has since used his Twitter account as a platform to defame half of the SA media, particularly his former employers and anyone else who believes the Sars “rogue unit” in fact was formed and functioned legally.

I can just imagine how much gratification he gets from these tweets, as they get automatic support from those with Gordhan in their crosshairs – the EFF and RET faction of the ANC included – who retweet everything he posts without any regard whatsoever for whether it’s accurate or not.

I almost consider it an honour to have made Rampedi’s shit list over a story I wrote earlier on Monday about his attempts to have a judicial inquiry into “media capture” through “narrative fixing by some media ‘cabals’” – which, of course, means any publication or journalist which publishes something he disagrees with.

Of course, what he wrote on Twitter about the story was riddled with half-truths and inaccuracies.

His accusation that my article violated the Press Code by failing to contact him for comment is meritless. His words, which accompanied the petition, were quoted at length and formed the basis of the article. The petition was accompanied by a statement from Rampedi, and statements on a public platform are seen as comment from their authors. We reported what he had himself willingly put out there, and presumably wanted publicity for.

It is ridiculous to expect a journalist to contact you to ask you what your views are on a statement you wrote.

Rampedi would find this out if he actually did what you’re supposed to when you believe the Press Code has been violated and lodge an ombudsman complaint like others did about his “rogue unit” stories – something his own publication never needs to fear facing because – in a supreme irony – Independent Media doesn’t even subscribe to the Press Code any more.

His supposed outrage over the code is probably faked, as he clearly cares way more about the kind of justice that takes place on Twitter than any actual accountability. The offer for him to lodge an ombudsman complaint, however, still stands. Just click on the link there, Piet. There are clear instructions on how to go about doing it.

If he cared about facts, he might discover that another person he took aim at, Trevor Stevens, is the editor of the print publication The Citizen, who doesn’t oversee the daily operations of the online publication – that would be our online editor, Charles Cilliers, and myself.

So Rampedi’s tweet saying Stevens supposedly “approved” the story is simply nonsense, and his anger in a second tweet about how Stevens supposedly “repackages” his stories “every Sunday to sell his failing, reactionary [and] badly edited paper” is misguided, as any aggregations of any stories he is referring to would not have appeared in the print edition of The Citizen, but only online. 

His focus on Stevens, as is often the case, is probably because Rampedi has one of his many axes to grind against The Citizen editor ever since the suspension and subsequent dismissal of former editor Steve Motale.

Rampedi’s MO is always the same – throw whatever he can at his enemies and hope something sticks – because even if it doesn’t, people online will believe just about anything someone says as long as said person shares their narrow political views.

At some point, all Rampedi’s defamation will catch up with him and he’ll be held to account – Tiso Blackstar is taking legal action against him and his colleague at Independent Media – Oliver Meth – has launched a formal complaint against what he described as the “vile allegations he has been spewing on social media”.

Until then, Rampedi will keep preaching to his toxic online choir, and I consider it my duty to solemnly tell him to go to hell.

The Citizen digital news editor Daniel Friedman. Picture: Tracy Lee Stark.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.

Read more on these topics

Piet Rampedi rogue unit

Access premium news and stories

Access to the top content, vouchers and other member only benefits