SUNDAY TIMES APPLICANT
AND
MOLEFE BRIAN RESPONDENT
MATTER NO: 3139/03/2017
DECISION: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
[1] The Sunday Times (“applicant”) asks for leave to appeal the Ruling of the Press Ombud dated 28 February 2017 in which the latter ruled against the applicant in favour of Mr Brian Molefe (“respondent”). The respondent had lodged a complaint against the applicant following an article in applicant’s edition of 29 January 2017, entitled “From Saxonwold Shebeen to MP.”.
[2] The article, which appeared on the first page, was a fairly lengthy one. But the dispute revolved around two simple statements. The article reported as follows: “A tearful Molefe claimed that he had been visiting a shebeen in Saxonwold, Johannesburg and not the Guptas, as the report suggested”. The complaint was that respondent never said that. What he says he said was the following: “There is a shebeen there, I think its two streets away from the Guptas house. Now I will not admit nor deny that I was going to the shebeen ...”.
The crux of the complaint was therefore that “the article is inaccurate, untrue and misleading”. The respondent contended that the applicant breached amongst others clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
[3] After the complaint was received by the office of the Press Ombud, the office referred it to the applicant for comment. There followed an exchange of emails between the parties which give an impression that some confusion arose. It is not necessary to delve into, or to unravel, that confusion. The applicant’s response was really that it had quoted respondent verbatim. Respondent disputed that, and demanded a retraction and an apology. Another leg of the applicant’s defence was that what it had written had to be considered within the context of the entire article.
[4] In his Ruling, the Ombud extensively dealt with the applicant’s defence, which he dismissed. The matter is really simple. Did the applicant in its above statement correctly quote the respondent verbatim? The answer must be in the negative if one compares the two sentences in question. Had the applicant presented what it wrote as an inference or opinion, as opposed to not only stating it as a fact but also as a verbatim reproduction, the situation could possibly have been different. As the respondent says in his written submissions opposing this application: “It is not for the Times to interpret a .... statement to such an extent that its readers are under the impression that such a person made those utterances ...” when the person actually did not do so. In any case as the Ombud says, the portion on which the respondent mainly relies to bolster its defence of interpretation, is too far apart from the disputed sentence.
[5] For all the above reasons as well as those given by the Ombud, my conclusion is that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; the application is therefore dismissed.
Dated this 28th day of March 2017
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel