Author and former ANN7 editor Rajesh Sundaram’s memory of his time with the Guptas came into awkward focus at the State Capture commission on Monday, 3 June 2019, when he was grilled about the accuracy of startling statements he claimed had been made by former president Jacob Zuma.

Sundaram is testifying at the commission about his brief spell with the Gupta TV channel in 2013, and in particular, about four meetings he said he attended in the presence of Zuma, who was allegedly very involved in the establishment of what Sundaram labelled a “propaganda” channel.

He was testifying from a statement he made to the commission as well as from sections of his book, Indentured: Behind the Scenes at Gupta TV, published in March 2018.

Commission chairperson Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo asked Sundaram how he remembered all the details, gestures or words used by Zuma and/or the Gupta brothers for his book some months after the alleged encounters in South Africa.

Justice Zondo’s interrogation came shortly after Sundaram spoke about one of the alleged meetings at Zuma’s official residence, which he had attended with the Gupta brothers.

He said Zuma had wanted to see a preview of trial news bulletins they had produced, so they had put together a package that he watched in their presence.

He said the Guptas wanted the dummy bulletins to be shown to Zuma and it did not matter that the models-turned-news anchors fumbled over their words.

And the truth also seemingly did not matter too much to Ajay Gupta in one instance.

He said this was when a clip featuring EFF leader Julius Malema in a helicopter came up on the screen, and Ajay Gupta allegedly hinted that was part of the channel’s “subtle” messaging that Malema liked the high life.

He testified that Ajay Gupta allegedly told Zuma: “We’re showing Malema as someone who is corrupt and enjoying the luxuries.”

Sundaram said the preview bulletins were produced as part of a training programme for ANN7 staff and that they covered normal on-day news events.

In the case of Malema, it was the only footage they could source from the SABC at the time and it had no relevance to Ajay Gupta’s claim.

“These visuals were the only available (of Malema) and he (Ajay) just made it up to please the president,” Sundaram told the commission.

This tied in with the requirement for propaganda subtleties on ANN7, he said.

Sundaram said he had not been happy about rushing a package, but Zuma appeared pleased and allegedly told them: “You have a good thing on your hands. These are much better than the SABC.”

Quoting from his book, Sundaram said: “If this is what you look like on launch day, you will be ahead, President Zuma said with a smile.”

At the time, the SABC had recently launched a 24-hour news channel.

He said one of the Gupta brothers told Zuma: “Sir you must come and press the button to inaugurate the channel. I know you declined before. We will have our editors do an exclusive interview.”

But Sundaram said Zuma was quick and “smart enough” to disagree and again, quoting his book, he said the former president said: “That will not send the right message.

“I am a part of the project. I am always ready to give you an interview after a few weeks.”

Justice Zondo asked Sundaram how he could remember precisely what words Zuma had used, considering that quite a lengthy period had passed between those meetings in mid-2013 and when he wrote the book.

Sundaram conceded that it may not have been said in exactly those words but that he believed they had accurately captured the essence of what had been said.

Justice Zondo wasn’t done. “But you can’t attribute words to someone, words that that person did not utter. Surely, you could make the same points without representing that those were the person’s words?”

Said Sundaram: “Perhaps, in hindsight, I should have narrated it otherwise.”

“It concerns me,” the judge said. “You are a journalist. Journalists write all the time and they know the purpose and rationale of quoting (someone). And they know when you can’t remember word for word what someone said, you make a point or say, words to this effect.”

Why, Justice Zondo asked, would an experienced journalist attribute words to someone in quotes or state that those were words to that effect based on his recollection in the absence of a record of what was said?

Sundaram admitted that he could have handled some of those statements alleged to have been made by Zuma differently, but his time with the Guptas was not ordinary, and as a result, some of what had happened had stuck with him.

He took time off after he left South Africa in September 2013 to start working on his book in solitude during a trip to Nepal in 2014.

The commission then heard about a disclaimer, in the form of a note to the reader, about it being based on Sundaram’s recollection, as well as unsuccessful attempts to corroborate parts of it.

Justice Zondo remarked that this suggested a lack of confidence about what was contained in the book.

But, Sundaram said, by the time the book was published last year, the Guptas had left their Saxonwold mansion, the #Guptaleaks had come into the public domain and Zuma was out of office – the circumstances and the legal red flags that had existed at the beginning had now fallen away or some of the claims in his book had been verified by former colleagues once they had left ANN7.

Sundaram had earlier testified about his first meeting with the former president when he accompanied a Gupta delegation to Zuma’s home.

He also testified about a conversation between one of the Gupta brothers and former Oakbay CEO Nazeem Howa.

The pair, he said, was very agitated that the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) did not want to spend some of their multimillion-rand advertising budget with them.

“It was almost like ‘how dare the IEC not come to the party,’” he said.

He said they emphasised the point that they would have Zuma deal with it.

Justice Zondo pressed for more detail, particularly in view of previous testimony by former government communications head Themba Maseko, that Zuma had once called him to ask to help the Guptas clinch a slice of the government’s lucrative advertising spend.

Sundaram said he was told by Howa and Atul Gupta the next day that they had managed to secure about R20-million – although they did not specify from which government unit.

He said some of the “dubious” commercial dealings at the company and the labour and immigration laws he believed they had violated made him realise he could not be associated with them for too long.

His position as editor was totally compromised and a reputation built up over many years as a professional was at risk. He decided to resign and left the next month.

Zuma was then under a lot of pressure to come to ANN7 to cut the ribbon for the launch but he resisted, Sundaram said. But a day or two before ANN7 was launched, Zuma did visit the office –something Sundaram said the Guptas had “foolishly” tried to keep secret.

No one was allowed to film during his 40- to 50-minute long tour of the office.

Asked why a room full of journalists and cameramen had simply stood down, Sundaram said: “These were not ordinary times, it was not an ordinary newsroom. It was almost like a North Korean newsroom being set up.”

He added: “I realised I would not be able to stay.”

Sundaram’s testimony continues on Tuesday 4 June. DM