After two decades reporting from front lines I’ve learned that truth in conflict is rarely clean. Photo: Said Khatib/AFP
When a government spokesperson devotes an open letter to attacking a journalist by name, it often says more about the state’s discomfort with being questioned than it does about the journalist.
On 21 July 2025, department of international relations and cooperation spokesperson Chrispin Phiri published an open letter accusing me of promoting “clickbait”, “unsubstantiated hogwash” and undermining the integrity of South African media. His response was directed at a blog published in the Times of Israel on 11 July.
In that blog, I raised a set of concerns based on documents shared with me by a source, Justin Lewis. These included allegations that certain South African officials may have had foreknowledge of the 7 October Hamas attacks and played a role in enabling legal access to international courts on Hamas’s behalf.
I never claimed that the allegations were confirmed, only that they deserve to be taken seriously and properly looked into. As a journalist, it is not my role to suppress serious allegations simply because they are unproven — it is my responsibility to bring them to light when they raise legitimate public interest concerns. In doing so, I make clear what is allegation and what is fact, and I seek responses from all relevant parties. That is how scrutiny, accountability, and responsible journalism work. Which is why two days later I published a follow-up explicitly stating that the material formed part of a lobbying and advocacy initiative — not a legal case — and that the source’s credibility had come under scrutiny.
Phiri’s letter acknowledged that clarification — only to dismiss it as “damage control”. Instead of presenting factual rebuttals, he delivered a lecture peppered with sarcasm and insults, calling my work reckless and unethical, and accusing me of misleading the public.
This exchange, at its core, comes down to a clear line of argument on both sides. My position is that journalists have a duty to raise serious allegations — especially when they involve governments, foreign policy or international law. Not because all allegations are true, but because the public deserves to know what questions are being asked, and what answers are being avoided.
Phiri’s position, on the other hand, is that because Justin Lewis has made exaggerated and questionable claims elsewhere, the allegations I raised should never have been aired. But journalism doesn’t work that way. Bad people can stumble onto important truths. Flawed sources can raise valid concerns. A journalist’s job is not to vouch for a source’s biography — it’s to follow a story where it leads, verify what can be verified, and disclose what can’t.
That’s what I did. Within 48 hours, I published a follow-up. I clarified the context not because the allegations were proven or disproven, but because responsible journalism requires transparency when new information comes to light. What Phiri offered in response was not a factual correction, but a character attack against both the source and me.
After two decades reporting from front lines in Gaza, Syria, Ukraine, Russia, Israel and beyond I’ve learned that truth in conflict is rarely clean. Sources sometimes collapse under scrutiny. When that happens, you take responsibility, correct, and move forward. That is exactly what I did.
What I did not do was present fiction as fact. I reported on allegations. I clarified their status. I acknowledged the problems. And I continued asking questions.
If the government believes those questions are baseless, it should present evidence to the contrary. It should clarify timelines, communications and diplomatic steps taken before and after 7 October. Instead, it has chosen to mock the person raising them.
The department’s refusal to engage with the core concern, South Africa’s foreign policy conduct and the credibility of its international alliances, is telling. Their silence on substance, and volume on character, only fuels public doubt.
And for the record: I do not claim South Africa collaborated with Hamas. I do not claim the allegations are proven. I do claim they are serious enough to merit scrutiny. That scrutiny should not be met with institutional outrage.
Phiri’s letter suggests that by platforming concerns, I violated the principles of journalism. But journalism is not built on silence. It’s built on inquiry. You follow leads. You evaluate sources. You clarify what cannot be confirmed. That’s what I did. That’s what I will continue to do.
South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice is not what I was writing about. My focus was narrower: what was said, shared or supported before the events of 7 October? Were there missteps or blind spots in our diplomatic positioning? And if so, shouldn’t we want to know?
In his closing, Phiri quotes Nelson Mandela: “Our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.” I would add this: our democracy is incomplete without the freedom to question our own government especially when the stakes involve war, ideology and lives.
I’ll continue to ask hard questions, report without fear, and correct when needed — not because it’s popular, but because journalism demands it. A free press doesn’t need permission to investigate — and it certainly doesn’t answer to the government it is questioning.
Paula Slier is a South African-born war correspondent and journalist.
Discussion about this post