Introduction
This mediation grew out of a hearing held at the offices of the Press Council on 15 October 2019. There were subsequent discussions with the parties regarding the text of this agreement. We acknowledge the efforts of both parties to reach a mediated agreement in this matter.
The hearing arose out of a complaint by Dr Tim Wilson who made it on behalf and with the support of Professor Sakhela Buhlungu, VC of Fort Hare.
The complaint
The complaint was over a series of articles carried in City Press over a period, mainly between March 10, 2019 and April 25, 2019. However, there was one relevant article that went back to 2018, published on 10 September.
Dr Wilson complained that the stories were one-sided, sometimes incorrect, and that the persistent negative coverage had led to fears that the newspaper’s reporter was being “fed” by one side in what has emerged as a dispute over attempts by the new VC to “clean up” alleged corruption at the institution.
The texts
The articles in question were:
There are three other articles relevant to this case, too.
2019-03-26: Fabrications and inaccuracies in report https://city-press.news24.com/Voices/fabrications-and-inaccuracies-in-report-20190322. This was mistakenly published under the byline Sakhela Bhengu, an error that went uncorrected until the day before the hearing.
2. Fort Hare should draw from its activism roots and groom SA’s next leaders (2019-04-26) by Barney Pityana, a Fort Hare alumnus, prominent figure in the black consciousness movement, and now with the Thabo Mbeki Foundation. https://city-press.news24.com/Voices/fort-hare-should-draw-from-its-activism-roots-and-groom-sas-next-leaders-20190426. This article did not mention the controversies recounted in the other article but the complainant, Dr Tim Wilson, drew attention to it because it was published online with links to some of the previous “negative” articles.
3. The third was not published in City Press at all but in the Daily Dispatch and Daily Maverick on 2019-04-24:
Broadly, the complaint centered around what was perceived to be a negative narrative taken up by City Press reporter Msindisi Fengu against the new Vice Chancellor, Professor Buhlungu.
There are two competing narratives about the new administration at Fort Hare, and the concern of the complainant was that Mr Fengu was, wittingly or unwittingly, being used by one “side” in the narrative.
The narrative reported by City Press was that of a new Vice-Chancellor “under fire” from senior managers, including the head of the audit and risk committee at the university. Various allegations had been levelled against him, including an alleged relationship with an employee in his office (10/3/19. The Council of the University had issued him with a suspension letter (24/4/19). In a story that follows this report, Fort Hare attempts to stem “downward spiral”, appoints acting vice-chancellor (25/4/19), Mr Fengu reports that Professor John Hendricks had been appointed acting vice-chancellor to replace the “suspended” Prof Buhlungu. This, the paper reports, was confirmed in a “scathing memo” sent out by interim council chairperson Sindile Toni to the university community and to the (then) minister of higher education, Naledi Pandor.
In the subsequent article, Pandor brings in experienced Nongxa to steady Fort Hare ship (27/4/19), Mr Fengu reports that Minister Pandor had appointed Professor Nongxa as an administrator after the university council “suspended” Professor Buhlungu. This is mentioned in the third paragraph. However, in the fifth paragraph, it quotes Pandor’s spokesperson as saying “Buhlungu would remain in office and work closely with Nongxa.”
This story also reports legal opinion from Buhlungu’s office that the two “decisions” made by Council – one suspending him, the other appointing Prof Hendricks as acting VC – were invalid as the university council was inquorate with only nine out of the total of 27 members taking a decision.
There is an alternate narrative that became clearer in both the complaint and the hearing: Professor Buhlungu, when he arrived as VC, began to take action against long-standing alleged corruption. Five or six senior administrators have been suspended or dismissed. One of them was the “whistle blower”. He subsequently apologized and resigned before an internal disciplinary hearing into procurement irregularities could get under way.
As part of a push-back against these actions, a Council meeting was held chaired by a newcomer to the University Council– an ANC member and councilor from the Buffalo city municipality, Mr Sindile Toni. The University Council meeting at which Mr Toni issued the “suspension” letter to Professor Buhlungu was his (Mr Toni’s) first. It seems only nine of the 27 members convened and Mr Toni was “appointed” interim chair. Because the meeting was inquorate, its decisions had no standing in law. This was made clear in a subsequent statement by Adv Thandi Orleyn, currently Interim Council chair, whose term as Council chair was extended. This statement was issued on the 24 April 2018, saying the Council meeting was inquorate and its decisions “had no legal effect”
This the university made clear in its comments to City Press, with legal opinion sourced from an internal and external source. As the university spokesperson, Ms Tandi Mapukata, said at the hearing, all Mr Fengu’s questions (which she read out) were premised on the assumption that the VC had been suspended.
“But the VC has never been suspended, the VC never left his office, the VC was working all the time. It [the Council meeting] was an illegal meeting illegally constituted and the decision that came out of that meeting [were]…illegal…so all of these questions, I could not respond to, because the VC never left office, not for one day not for one second, he continued to operate, he continued to sign documents and approve them.”
The story about Professor Hendricks being appointed as acting VC also emanated from a letter from Mr Toni, but had no force or effect.
The reporting
City Press defended its articles, saying it wrote them on the basis of “official” information received, and then went to the VC’s office for comment, which it duly reported.
There was no “agenda” to be negative or to target Professor Buhlungu, according to City Press deputy editor, Dumisane Lubisi.
In fact, the newspaper had asked Professor Buhlungu for an interview. He had declined and offered to write an article instead rebutting the earlier articles in City Press. The fact that it was published under the wrong name was a genuine error, and the deputy editor, Mr Lubisi, took responsibility for neglecting to fix it for so long, saying this was an oversight.
The problem, though, is that this error exacerbated what had already become a poor relationship between the university and the newspaper.
The adjudicators, Mr Fana and Professor Govender, as well as the Ombud, were concerned by what seemed to be a consistent lack of verification on some of the series of stories.
Key examples are stories are the initial story about the “suspension” of the VC, (“Fort Hare issues its boss with suspension letter”),the “appointment” of Prof Hendricks as acting VC (“Fort Hare attempts to stem ‘downward spiral’, appoints acting vice-chancellor”), and the story about Minister Pandor’s appointment of Prof Nongxa as administrator (“Pandor brings in experienced Nongxa to steady Fort Hare ship”) In the latter, although the headline reflected the facts, the third paragraph says: “Nongxa’s appointment follows after the university’s council suspended the university’s vice-chancellor and principal, Professor Sakhela Buhlungu”. The appointment of Prof Nongxa as administrator is explicitly linked to the “suspension” of Prof Buhlungu, although by this time, the university (and the Minister) had emphatically stated this was not the case. And several paragraphs further down in the story, it reports that the VC will remain in office. This, no doubt, would have been very confusing to readers.
In the story about the “appointment” of Prof Hendricks as acting VC, the reliance on a statement that came from a structure that did not have legal standing, and the lack of interrogation about it, also resulted in inaccurate and misleading reporting.
The relationship between City Press and the university.
It was evident in the meeting between Fort Hare and City Press and the adjudicators that there was, at best, a poor relationship between the university and the newspaper.
To a large extent, this was because there was little trust between the reporter, Mr Fengu, and the university’s officials. This was one reason why Professor Buhlungu declined an interview.
There was a salutary lesson for the meeting in the preamble to the Press Code that says the media shall avoid “unnecessary harm”, when Ms Mapukata explained that the “woman” in the story who was alleged to have had an “affair” with the VC was herself (“Fort Hare vice-chancellor under fire over alleged affair with employee”)
She explained how the false allegation had affected her life, her family, and particularly her children.
“It was very hurtful; it was my family! And some university people still believe it. This is not a laughing matter. These headlines destroyed families. There were questions asked around us; even today when we are in an event together, I avoid taking pictures with him.”
This allegation has been the subject of a forensic investigation undertaken by independent assessors appointed by the University. The report is due to be gazetted on Friday 13th December. The administrator of Fort Hare, Professor Loyiso Nongxa, who was appointed in the place of a dysfunctional University Council, has shared with the Ombudsman extracts of the report that unequivocally clear the VC and Ms Mapukata of all these allegations. I quote parts of the extract below:
4.37 Based on the processes performed to investigate the alleged “romantic relationship “ and the existence of a child from the said relationship, there has been no evidence found to corroborate or support the relevant allegations.
4.124 The whistleblower and others seeking to discredit the V-C and [the Office Manager] during industrial action, or on social media, appear to have filled in the gaps or their lack of knowledge of the facts, with their own perceptions.
5.00 No evidence could be found of an alleged “romantic relationship “ between the V-C and [the Office Manager], nor the existence of any child born from this [alleged] relationship, based on the processes and procedures performed during the investigation. These findings are supported by, inter Alia, comprehensive analysis of electronic data obtained from both parties’ official devices; analysis of telephonic account information; comparative analysis of documentation; and questions posed and answered during interviews conducted.
5.01 In the absence of proof of any personal relationship between the V-C and [the Office Manager] there would have been no duty to disclose any relationship by the V-C. The allegations of the V-C not declaring or disclosing a conflict of interest could not be supported or corroborated by the evidence provided or obtained. No evidence was found of telephonic or email communications from V-C to [the Office Manager] prior to her appointment, based on the analysis of data obtained from the relevant imaging process.
Professor Govender pointed out that Fort Hare could have been more forthcoming with information that would have helped explain the situation to the reporter.
The fact that Prof Buhlungu declined an interview was also counter-productive to building a relationship, even though at that stage it was clear there was little trust between the university and the newspaper.
City Press also complained that it was not given the letter from alumni supporting the new VC (“Be part of the renewal of Fort Hare” A clarion call to students, staff and alumni”, DM 24/4/19), nor was it given the statement from Adv Thandi Orleyn (issued on 24/4/19) explaining that the “Council decision” to suspend the VC was invalid and the decision “had no legal effect”.
In the case of the alumni letter, it was signed by a number of prominent people such as Dr Brigalia Bam, Ms Dorothy Calata, Bishop Malusi Mpumlwana, Archbishop Njogonkulu Ndungane, Professor Barney Pityana, and Dr Tim Wilson himself.
Dr Wilson explained in the hearing that he had given the letter to the local East London-based paper, the Daily Dispatch, and asked them if he could give it also to the Daily Maverick.
Dr Wilson has explained that the letter from the alumni was published very early on 24 April and circulated to all staff, students and alumni. In retrospect, it may have been a mistake not to include City Press even though the relationship between the institution and the newspaper was frayed at the time. That afternoon, for instance, the story about the “suspension” of Professor Buhlungu was published online.
We (the adjudicators and I) cannot judge whether the article was in response to this letter, but the university officials suspect it may have been. I mention this to show the low levels of trust between the two parties.
However, at the mediation hearing there were expressions of good faith from both sides.
Dr Wilson, in particular, expressed his respect for City Press and the institution of the media in general. He hoped that a reporter would come to the university to see the revival of the university, particularly the world-class academics it was attracting such as historian, Dr Luvoyo Wotshela, who has a PHD from Oxford University and had a wide choice of universities to work at, and similarly Dr Pumla Dineo Gqola, the renowned feminist writer and academic.
On behalf of the university, he issued an open invitation for a reporter from City Press to visit the campus and assess the changes and renewal.
For his part, Mr Lubisi expressed his interest in building such a relationship and asked, in particular, for female op-ed writers from Fort Hare to write for City Press.
While it was noted that no-one, including the Ombud, could recommend which reporter should be assigned to cover the institution, it seemed clear to the adjudicators that the relationship between Mr Fengu and university officials was damaged. It may therefore be more productive, when focusing on rebuilding a relationship between these two key (and vital) national institutions, to take this into account when assigning a journalist to cover Fort Hare.
Recommendation
This hearing agreed to try to reach a mediated agreement. If not, the Ombud and adjudicators will make a ruling.
We cannot say, on the basis of the information before us, that Mr Fengu was wittingly, or unwittingly, used by a particular group at Fort Hare to undermine the Vice-Chancellor. However, the effect of his articles worked to favour a particular group.
In large part, this was because of failings in the journalistic process – a lack of fact-checking, of verification, and of follow-ups.
Thus City Press should take note of the following:
In respect of Fort Hare, the following recommendations are made:
Mr Lubisi points out that there are no details of the apology in the letter; if the newspaper had been aware of it earlier “it would have used it to ask questions.” We have pointed out above that Fort Hare, notwithstanding the breakdown in trust, should improve its communication with the media, including and perhaps especially with City Press. In turn, the paper, in the interests of truthfulness, balance and context, should report on these developments.
We hope that City Press will take up the university’s invitation to visit it and explore various stories there, not to blunt critical coverage if that is necessary, but in the interests of fairer and more contextual reporting of one of the oldest African institutions in the country.
Wandile Fana: Adjudicator
Prof Karthy Govender: Adjudicator
Pippa Green: Ombudsman
October 24, 2019
Revised after inputs, December 5, 2019