DEAR Editor,-
The article in the Herald under the headline ‘Naked confusion’ wherein I became the subject of an irresponsible attack, places me in a rather invidious position because my critical reply has to be tempered by the fact that my indicter occupies a leadership role in the clergy.
However, after considerable reflection on the article, which is both defamatory and willful, I find it my obligation to restate the facts and correct some reckless utterances.
The accusation that I communicated with Lieutenant-Colonel Sipho Thabethe and stated that ‘the final decision had been taken and that the area had been designated for naturists’ is unfounded. It is stated categorically that at no time was I in communication with the said officer.
Regrettably, Rev Mike Effanga complements this baseless accusation by his aspersion that “Mr Nair had given the green light to violate by-laws”. It is particularly this concoction that I find exceedingly offensive and damaging to my reputation.
The position adopted by Rev Effanga begs a series of questions relating to his intentions. Notwithstanding this, an apology is certainly not inappropriate!
On the morning of April 3, I took three calls relating to the naturist beach, namely one from the media, one from Rev Effanga himself and the other, certainly not from Lt-Col Thabethe. To all three callers, who queried the status of council’s position, a response highlighting the existence of a standing resolution on the naturist beach and that the matter was set for review was provided.
If this caused people to slip into their birthday suits, then surely I should not be held personally responsible for a resolution taken by council?
I painstakingly record, that over last three decades, I have enjoyed the most cordial interaction with clergy members of different faiths and denominations. Both as an individual and on behalf of my organisation, we remain eternally grateful to this sector for the invaluable contribution that they made during our violent transition to democracy.
Their continued peace initiatives, spiritual and pastoral support, provision of food and shelter and the confidence and hope that they provided for a democratic South Africa, will be eternally etched in our history.
We will continue to depend on them for their spiritual offerings. It is therefore against this background that I find the posture taken by Rev Effanga foreign to our understanding and our dialogue. I pray that there will be a moderation of this unconventional attack on individuals as well as government and trust that he will allow the democratic process to unfold.
RONNIE NAIR
