The acting CEO of the Louis Trichardt Memorial Hospital opted to threaten the Zoutpansberger with legal action, rather than answer pertinent questions relating to the damning findings of a recent hospital board report regarding the apparent sad state of affairs at this state hospital.

On 31 August, the Zoutpansberger featured an article regarding the hospital board's report, following their inspection visit to the hospital on 17 July. The report highlighted several serious shortcomings on the hospital management’s side regarding poor hygiene, control, safety and severe shortages in medicine and cleaning materials. The report concluded by stating that the board was of the opinion that the acting CEO of the hospital, Mrs Connie Raulinga, was not capable of running the hospital.

Immediately following the publication of this article, Louis Trichardt Memorial Hospital spokesperson Mr Kutelani Sigidi responded by launching a scathing attack on the “faceless” board member who had leaked the report to the media. This was done by means of a media statement. In their statement, the hospital further contested the actual existence of such a hospital board report, even quoting the hospital board's chairman, Mr Percy Sinthumule, as having gone on record as saying “the alleged report has never been commissioned by the hospital board [and] as such is deemed to be non-existent.” This despite the fact that Sinthumule was part of the four board members who visited the hospital on 17 July and despite the fact that the provincial spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Development, Mr Sinenhlanhla Gumede, had confirmed that the findings of the report were a true and honest reflection of the situation at the hospital. The crux of the hospital management’s statement was that the findings of the board’s report were all lies aimed at “misleading the community”. Sigidi challenged the Zoutpansberger to expose these lies “if responsible reporting is still the backbone of responsible journalism.”

In accepting the challenge to expose the "lies", the Zoutpansberger submitted several follow-up questions regarding the “actual” situation at the hospital to Mr Sigidi. The newspaper asked the hospital, among other things, whether it denied receiving an inspection by hospital board members and whether it denied that a report had been compiled after this visit. The newspaper also asked the hospital whether they would permit an unmonitored in loco visit by the press to verify the actual situation at the hospital.

Sagidi acknowledged receipt of the follow-up questions, but maintained that they were unaware of such a board report. “Until such copy is brought to our attention and its authenticity confirmed by all board members, in particular the chairperson and the secretary of the hospital board, its existence will remain suspect,” Sagidi said. None of the Zoutpansberger’s questions was answered. The newspaper then requested Sagidi once again to answer the questions, but no reply was received.

The silence from the hospital’s side was broken last Wednesday afternoon when the Zoutpansberger received a faxed copy of an attorney's letter, stating: “Our client [Mrs Raulinga] is not at this stage, responding to all the allegations contained in the said article but reserve the right to do so at a later stage and before the appropriate forum should the need arise. Our client’s failure to respond to each and every allegation contained in the said article should not be construed as an admission thereof.”

The attorney’s letter further states that the Zoutpansberger’s article contains defamatory allegations concerning Raulinga “that were understood by the readers of your newspaper that our client is incompetent and incapable of running the hospital ...” The letter then states that Raulinga had instructed her attorneys to inform the newspaper that, unless an apology is published on the front page of the newspaper, “legal action will be instituted against you [the Zoutpansberger].”

The Zoutpansberger has since responded by informing Raulinga’s attorneys that an apology will not be published, arguing that Raulinga never pointed out any inaccuracies in the report that warrant an apology. The newspaper had also invited Raulinga to reply to the allegations and questions, but she opted not to do so.