Gosiame Sithole. Photo: Twitter/@Piet Rampedi
The infamous Tembisa decuplets have made one more return to the spotlight, after the Public Protector released a report on Friday, confirming that there is no evidence the babies’ mother was ever pregnant, or that they ever existed at all.
Acting Public Protector advocate Kholeka Gcaleka released her 57-page report into the matter, following a complaint by the father of the still-unseen miracle babies in June of last year.
Tebogo Edward Tsotetsi had issued a complaint to the Public Protector’s office based on six points related to the decuplets’ mother, Gosiame Sithole.
ALSO READ: Decuplet saga: Thembisa 10 questions finally answered
Gosiame Sithole shot to international prominence in June 2021 when it was reported by IOL that she had given birth to a record 10 babies at once.
The only problem with this exclusive story was that there was no sign of the babies anywhere, and several medical experts questioned the veracity of a birth this complicated happening without a massive team of experts assisting in the delivery.
Cue a media frenzy, with even government getting involved, and Independent Media owner Iqbal Survé defending journalist Piet Rampedi by invoking allegations of an international child smuggling and a grand conspiracy against his company.
After the cracks in the story started to appear, Survé, flanked by Rampedi and fake gyneacologist Dr Mpho Pooe, hosted a media briefing where he accused government hospitals of being the “epicentre” of human trafficking, and powerful politicians of threatening all doctors, nurses, and staff who thought of exposing these activities with having their careers destroyed.
Steve Biko hospital and others, as well as government departments are allegedly part of a human-trafficking ring that exploits vulnerable patients, especially vulnerable black women, Survé claimed.
Babies are supposedly used for muti, cosmetic purposes and stem cell research.
ALSO READ: Independent’s decuplet baby smuggling claims ‘false rumour mongering’ – hospital
They went on to claim that the decuplets had been spirited away by a foreign doctor, and that government was in on it, the grand purpose being who-knows-what.
Rampedi believed it was all part of a vendetta against him personally.
The PP’s office used documents and interviews with several of the doctors and management of the facilities where the babies were allegedly born, and found several discrepancies in the mother’s story, as well as evidence from her employers that it was unlikely she was ever really pregnant.
Tsotetsi had alleged that after delivering the babies at Steve Biko Hospital on 7 June 2021, Sithole informed him that she was not allowed to have visitors due to Covid restrictions, and that the babies were being held in the hospital’s Intensive Care Unit.
He went on to alert Rampedi of the birth, while also informing the Gauteng Department of Social Development, leading to the subsequent media frenzy.
On June 9, however, the City of Ekurheleni and the hospital announced that there was no evidence of Sithole’s admission or delivery at any private or public healthcare facilities in South Africa.
Sithole had insisted that she was examined numerous times by a Dr Ocadinngwa at Steve Biko Hospital, but the hospital also had no record of such a doctor working at the facility. She also claimed to have visited Netcare Sunninghill, Carstenhof and Mediclinic Medforum Hospitals during her pregnancy for maternity check-ups.
ALSO READ: Sanef calls for independent inquiry into ‘Tembisa 10’ reporting
The PP’s office found that none of these facilities had any record of her ever being a patient or being admitted to their facilities.
She, however, insisted that she had given birth to the ten babies (seven boys and three girls).
The PP’s office is also in possession of a report by the Tembisa Hospital’s Clinical
Obstetrician and Gynaecology department, which found that based on a clinical assessment and
investigations, “the alleged recent pregnancy of Ms Sithole could not be confirmed”.
In an affidavit from Sithole’s former employer, her manager Scott Paterson stated that he never believed that she was really pregnant, “as her stomach grew too fast from one week to the next”, and she allegedly submitted a number of fake or altered medical certificates.
This was confirmed by Midrand Clinic in an email to her employer, who said Sithole did not have a file with them, and that the stamp and stationery on which the medical certificate was printed did not belong to the clinic.
Based on all the above, the PP found that “… Based on the medical evidence in possession of the Public Protector namely; the Clinical Obstetrician and Gynaecology Report from Tembisa Hospital, it has been determined that Ms Sithole was neither pregnant nor did she deliver decuplets as alleged.”
This means that the hospital could not have contravened the law by separating her from children that did not exist.
The PP found that taking into account all the circumstance surrounding the alleged birth of the decuplets, and the fact that Sithole had been in the care of the Gauteng Department of Social Development (GDSD) since at least 2017, her admission for mental observation “may have been warranted”.
The report notes that during her admission, Sithole was under the care of a psychiatrist, Prof Kalaivani Naidu, as well as an obstetrician Dr Bongani Spencer Strike Nkosi.
Prof. Naidu stated in his affidavit that he noted Nkosi’s findings that there was no evidence Sithole had recently been pregnant, and that there were “reasonable grounds which warranted Ms Sithole’s involuntary admission to Tembisa Hospital for observation.”
The PP also found no evidence that either of the doctors had shared Sithole’s medical information with the media or anyone else.
ALSO READ: Mkhwebane’s office probing ‘Thembisa 10’, while she catches flack for tweet
Tsotetsi had also complained that the removal of Sithole’s children from his family’s care and an interview with Social Development in the presence of one of her friends had been violations of Sithole’s parental rights and her right to privacy.
The PP, however, says that “Factual evidence reveals that the GDSD removed Ms Sithole’s children with
her knowledge after she had made a request for their removal”, as she did not believe Tsotetsi’s family was providing adequate care.
The removal was done with approval from the Tembisa Children’s Court.
As for the interview in the presence of a third party, there is an affidavit which reveals that Sithole had asked for a family friend to be present during the interview.
Tsotetsi’s complaint that Sithole was reported missing on the instruction of a GDSD official for the sole purpose of having her involuntarily admitted for mental evaluation was also found to be without merit.
The PP found that Sithole’s family’s decision to report her missing was taken based on information provided by Tsotetsi himself, after he had told a relative that she could not be found.
Considering all the evidence, the PP also found that the SAPS’ decision to take Sithole into custody after the report was also warranted, as she was not arrested, but simply taken to a police station, with her permission, in order to bring closure to the missing person’s enquiry opened by Ms Tsotetsi.
The final aspect of Sithole’s complaint related to the fact that the Gauteng Provincial Government had on 23 June 2021 issued a media statement in which they confirmed that the medical examination on Sithole had found no evidence of her being pregnant or giving birth “in recent times”.
Tsotetsi believed this was a violation of her right to privacy, as she had not consented to this information being shared.
The Gauteng government responded to this complaint in an affidavit, saying their statement was a direct response to the media frenzy surrounding the decuplets saga, and in particular the reports by Rampedi and Independent Media which stated the births and supposed disappearance of the decuplets “as a fact and not allegations”.
The province said it had conducted internal investigations into the reports, “most of which were continuously misleading and confusing the public about the GPG, the Gauteng Department of Health
and Health Facilities within the Province”, and were creating negative perceptions about health facilities.
They argued that the statement meant to “communicate three things to all the media articles published by the Independent News and Pretoria News. Firstly, to refute the media articles as false and unsubstantiated. Secondly, to communicate facts regarding this matter. Thirdly, to communicate the GPG’s commitment to continue to give medical, psychological and social support to Ms Sithole”
This led to PP to conclude that “it was reasonable for the GPG to protect the reputation of the Department of Health and health facilities (Steve Biko Hospital) against the potential reputational threat posed by media articles published by the Independent Media, the Pretoria News and other media platforms.”
ALSO READ: Piet Rampedi apologises to Independent staff over ‘Tembisa 10’ furore
Based on the findings above, the PP says it now considers the matter closed, and any further complaints can be explored via legal remedies at the complainants’ disposal.
Piet Rampedi could not be reached for comment over the outcome of the investigation which had resulted from his reporting.
Download our app and read this and other great stories on the move. Available for Android and iOS.
