Singapore court orders journalist to reveal sources
By James M. Dorsey
A Singapore court has ordered veteran journalist and scholar
JMD to reveal his sources for his reporting on an audit of suspended world
soccer body FIFA vice president and Asian Football Confederation (AFC)
president Mohammed Bin Hammam's management of AFC's finances and agreement with
a Singapore-based company on the group's marketing rights.
The court accepted a demand by World Sports Group (WSG) to
instruct the journalist and scholar to reveal his sources on the grounds that
the audit was confidential and that the sources had defamed the company.
The court in a four-hour hearing however stayed its decision
pending an appeal that Mr. Dorsey's lawyers, N. Sreenivasan and Sujatha
Selvakumar of Straits Law Practice LLC, will submit in the coming days.
Mr. Dorsey's lawyers argued that he was not a party to any
confidentiality agreement and that if WSG had an issue it should take it up
with the AFC to whom the original report was addressed. The lawyers noted
further that the code of ethics of journalists in Singapore as well as in
numerous Asian countries, including Malaysia and Hong Kong shield journalists
from revealing sources.
In an affidavit to the court, Mr. Dorsey asserted that he
believed that WSG’s legal action was an attempt at “indirectly discovering who
within the AFC may have breached their confidentiality and also suppress any
well meaning or good intended person from coming forward in the future and is
seeking to punitively punish those who may have spoken against them.”
WSG has said it applied to the High Court to force Mr. Dorsey
to reveal his sources with the intention of launching possible defamation or
breach of confidence proceedings. "We want information so we can determine
what charges to make and against whom," WSG lawyer Deborah Barker told
Agence France Presse.
The internal AFC audit conducted by PriceWaterhouse Coopers
(PwC) charged that Mr. Bin Hammam had used an AFC sundry account as his
personal account, questioned the terms and negotiation procedure of a $1
billion marketing rights agreement between WSG and the AFC and raised questions
of $14 million in payments by a WSG shareholder to Mr. Bin Hammam prior to the
signing of the agreement.
In its report, PwC said that “it is highly unusual for funds
(especially in the amounts detailed here) that appear to be for the benefit of
Mr Hammam personally, to be deposited to an organization’s bank account. In
view of the recent allegations that have surrounded Mr Hammam, it is our view
that there is significant risk that…the AFC may have been used as a vehicle to
launder funds and that the funds have been credited to the former President for
an improper purpose (Money Laundering risk)” or that “the AFC may have been
used as a vehicle to launder the receipt and payment of bribes.”
Malaysian police earlier this month arrested the husband of
an associate of Mr. Bin Hammam on suspicion of helping steal documents related
to one of the payments to Mr. Bin Hammam from AFC’s head office in Kuala
Lumpur.
WSG has refused to comment on the PwC report and has
threatened reporters, including the author of this
report, with defamation
proceedings. However in an August 28, 2012 letter to this reporter WSG Group
Legal Advisor Stephanie McManus asserted that “PWC are incorrect and
misconceived in suggesting that the MRA was undervalued. They have neither
considered the terms of the contract correctly, the market, nor the
circumstances in which it was negotiated,” Ms. McManus wrote.
The master rights agreement is controversial both because of
the unexplained payments as well as assertions by sources close to the AFC that
the soccer group, in line with common practice among international sport
associations, should have concluded a service provider rather than a master
rights agreement with WSG. The sources said such an agreement would have given
the AFC greater control of its rights and how they are exploited and enabled it
to better supervise the quality of services provided by WSG.
In a July 13 letter to lawyers Shearn Delamore & Co, PWC
explicitly leaves open the possibility that the AFC might share the report with
third parties. For that reason, the terms of the report contain a clause that
shields PwC from any liability should the AFC choose to share the report with
non-AFC institutions or persons.
The letter stipulates that the report is intended “solely
for the internal use and benefit of Shearn Delamore & Co. and the Asian
Football Confederation,” and that third parties are not authorised to have
access to the report. The letter however goes on to say that should third
parties gain access they agree that the report was compiled in accordance with
instructions by the law firm and the AFC and that PwC is not liable for any
consequences stemming from the fact that third parties had been granted access.
Lawyers for FIFA earlier this year sought unsuccessfully to
introduce the report in Mr. Bin Hammam's appeal proceedings in the
Lausanne-based Court of Arbitration of Sport against the world soccer body's banning for
life of the Qatari national from involvement on soccer on charges of bribery.
Both FIFA and the AFC have suspended M. Bin Hammam on the
basis of the report pending further investigation of the allegations in the PwC
report and separate charges that he last year sought to bribe Caribbean soccer
officials. Mr. Bin Hammam has denied all allegations and charges.
James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam
School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in
Singapore and the author of the blog, The Turbulent World of Middle East
Soccer.
Your attorney has some good arguments, James. If they had been more transparent and honest in the first place, you wouldn't have had to resort to confidential sources. Confidential sources should remain confidential for good reason - they often risk too much if they divulge the truth. I know, because when I did a story on questionable expenditures and shoddy services, my sources feared retaliation. Some feared that their children could be retaliated against, too. There is a time and place for confidentiality, and to punish the messenger is throwing the game to the cheaters. And it has been proven that you uncovered significant corruption, so who cares about the sources? The story stands on its own. They are the ones harboring a lie, and they tried to turn it on you. Imagine what the world would be like today if journalists were repeatedly forced to disclose all of their confidential sources. Consider Watergate, for starters. It set a precedence and made those at the highest levels accountable.
ReplyDelete