INKATHA FREEDOM PARTY APPLICANT
AND
THE SUNDAY TIMES RESPONDENT
MATTER NO: 07/11/2014
DECISION ON APLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
[1] The Inkatha Freedom Party (“applicant”) seeks leave to appeal to the Appeals Panel against the Ruling of the Press Ombudsman in favour of the Sunday Times (“respondent”), handed down on 26 January 2015. I apologize that the matter was not disposed of sooner. For some reason, it fell out of my radar and when I picked it up, I discovered that some pages were missing, which had to be resent.
[2] The Ruling was on complaints lodged by the applicant against the respondent following two stories published by the respondent on 12 October 2014 (“first story”) and 26 October 2014 (“second story”).
The first story
[3] The headline to the first story read: “’Colonial’ taxes irk Buthelezi’s last subjects”. The story was about various taxes being levied on members of the Buthelezi clan, with some residents complaining about them.
[4] The applicant’s complaint was that the story, inasmuch as it brought Prince Buthelezi, the applicant’s leader, into the tax issue, conflated his role as such leader with that of the head of the clan. Applicant pointed out that the Prince had long ceased to be involved in the administration of the affairs of the clan; two deputies were doing that. Applicant complained that the picture of the statue of its leader, published with the story, was wrongly presented as though it had been paid for by levies from members of the clan, whereas it had been paid for by the applicant to honour the Prince as its leader. The statue “marks the site of the Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi Museum and Documentation Centre, the name of which is blurred out of the photo. The question must be asked; why was it blurred out?” The applicant contents that this was done to mislead.
[5] In its response, the respondent denies conflating Prince Buthelezi’s two capacities. It states that the reporter “merely described the two roles as vesting in him;” nor did the story suggest that the statue was intended to endear him to local residents. Respondent also denies that the picture of the statue was tempered with; nor was it suggested that the stature was paid for by the locals. The respondent also argued that although there were deputies to run the clan, the Prince was still the head. Two points weigh heavily with me, apart from the above contentions by the respondent. Firstly, the fact that one of the deputies responded and his response was captured, although not as much as respondent would have liked; respondent was not obliged to publish the entire response. Secondly, the Prince responded, and his response was published. I really do not think that the heading and the story sustain the complaint.
[6] For the above reasons, as well as those given by the Ombudsman, I do no think that the applicant has any reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Committee with this complaint.
The second complaint
[7] The headline to the second story read:
“Homeland house still mine, says Buthelezi”. The story was about whether a particular house, in which Prince Buthelezi used to live while leader of Kwa-Zulu homeland, belonged to him or not. The Ulundi Municipality said it belonged to him as he had paid for it, even though it had not been transferred to him yet. The applicant complained that the respondent concocted a story that there was a row about the house, when there was none; respondent contracted itself by saying the row was between the Prince and the Kwa-Zulu Natal government, while also saying the row was between the Ulundi Municipality and Kwa-Zulu Natal government. Applicant says the respondent ignored the information given to it by the Acting Municipal Manager of Ulundi, Mr G Zulu, which stated that the Prince did pay for the house. The respondent’s response was that the comments by Mr Zulu were reflected in their story. It also points out that the fact is that there is a dispute between Ulundi Municipality and the Kwa-Zulu Natal government about the house. In my view, any person reading Mr Zulu’s response would know where the dispute is, namely, between the Ulundi Municipality and the Kwa-Zulu Natal Government. Mr Zulu’s response is quite clear.
[8] For the above reason, I agree with the Ombudsman’s reasoning and findings regarding this complaint, as also the one regarding the Hogarth column. The applicant has no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel, and the application is therefore dismissed.
Dated this 8th day of April 2015
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel