Ruling by the Press Ombud
19 July 2017
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Moloto Mothapo, spokesperson of Parliament, and those of Charles Cilliers, digital editor of The Citizen newspaper.
Parliament is complaining about a story in The Citizen of 30 May 2017, headlined Nehawu calls for ‘corrupt’ parliament secretary’s head.
Complaint
Parliament complains that the newspaper did not ask it for comment on statements that were untrue / half true / untested and, as such, were unnecessarily harmful to the reputation of the Secretary to Parliament, Mr Gengezi Mgidlana.
These statements / allegations were about the latter having irregularly:
· made staff appointments to his office;
· appointed himself to chair the tender-adjudication committee; and
· awarded himself a bursary of R30 000.
The text
The article, penned by Gosebo Mathope, said Nehawu believed the only rational outcome of investigations against Mgidlana was that he be fired. The union’s Parliamentary chairperson, Mr Sthe Thembe, reportedly stated his only hope was for the Public Protector to investigate and for Parliament to institute an inquiry.
Nehawu’s unhappiness reportedly stemmed from a declaration by Parliament that there would be no salary increases for its employees for the next financial year, that the Parliamentary Protection Services staff complement had “ballooned”, and that several irregular appointments to Mgidlana’s office had taken place.
The complaint in more detail
The sentences in dispute read as follows:
Irregular appointments: “Thembe said his organisation was unhappy with the … irregular appointments to the office of the secretary to parliament… [Nehawu] is also aggrieved by Mgidlana’s alleged hiring of senior managers to his office, whose positions were not approved…
‘[The] secretary to parliament has hired a divisional manager responsible for strategic business and office manager in the office of the secretary to parliament,’ Thembe said, and he contended both positions were not budgeted for, as they were not on the approved parliament structure.”
Irregular self-appointment: “Another thorny matter Nehawu would like to see resolved is Mgidlana’s self-appointment to chair tender-adjudication committee. As with the bursary debacle, Thembe claimed Mgidlana wrote a letter to himself asking for the approval (by himself) of himself as the chairperson in contravention of the PFMA.”
Irregular awarding of bursary: “ ‘[Mgidlana] is greedy. For someone who earns that much money, he recently awarded himself a bursary of R30 000. He actually wrote a letter to himself asking for the approval of the award,’ Thembe claimed.”
The Citizen responds
Cilliers says the journalist did go out of his way to get a response from Parliament and from Mgidlana on each of Nehawu’s allegations against him – however, no response was forthcoming. He says, “We would have updated the article and, in fact, done a follow-up article immediately if any of the questions were responded to at any point, but that never happened.”
In response to the complaint, the journalist’s note to the digital editor read: “I first spoke to Mothapo’s PA and she explained he was not in the office… I explained that since these are serious charges I wouldn’t like to miss the opportunity to give [Mgidlana an opportunity] to respond to them. She said he was in a meeting and would give [him] the message. I then did something I generally don’t do. I drafted the article first and forwarded it to him and included the PA [on the correspondence]…”
The reporter sent his text on May 30 at 14:08 to the following e-mail addresses:
· momothapo@parliament.gov.za; and
· lmrwexana@parliament.gov.za.
Cilliers offers to:
· afford Mathopo a right of reply in the form of an article of a maximum of 850 words;
· append a correction to the online story stating that the newspaper did not receive a response from Parliament at the time of going to press; and
· link this to the right of reply.
Mothapo replies
Rejecting The Citizen’s offer to publish an article, Mathopo says the journalist:
· “surprisingly” sent his e-mail to the wrong address (lmrwexana@parliament.gov.za, instead of lrwexana@parliament.gov.za), as he had used the correct address before;
· posted his article at 14:55 – a mere 47 minutes after sending his e-mail – which left Parliament not enough time to respond; and
· neglected to state that he was not able to get a response, as required by the Code of Ethics and Conduct.
Mathopo says he has reasons to believe the reporter unreasonably, deliberately and maliciously used the wrong address to deny Parliament an opportunity to respond – all messages sent to incorrect e-mail addresses immediately return back to sender.
He concludes, “[The reporter’s] submission of the enquiry and the handling of the matter demonstrates an absence of good faith, and instead suggests manipulation of processes, and therefore, should be deemed as unethical and unprofessional conduct.”
Analysis
The main issue is the question: Did the reporter give Parliament sufficient time to respond to his enquiry? It is undisputed that he knew both Mathopo and Mgidlana were caught up in meetings at the time, and that he published his text 47 minutes after he sent his e-mail.
Section 1.8 of the Code states, “…Reasonable time should be afforded the subject for a response…”
Of course, “reasonable time” is a relative concept – it would depend on many factors, such as the availability of a respondent, the number of questions, and the nature of the enquiry.
In this case, both respondents were not available, the text provided to them was quite lengthy, and the content quite serious. A mere 47 minutes was certainly not a “reasonable time” in this instance (as Cilliers has admitted, to his credit).
Given this fact, as well as that the allegations against Mgidlana were of a serious nature, the publication of the article was unfair to the latter. Unfair, because it had the potential of unnecessarily harming his reputation (depending on the veracity of the accusations – the determination of which, of course, falls outside the scope of this office). The point is that, had the journalist exercised care and consideration regarding Mgidlana’s reputation, he would not have published his article when he did.
By not reporting Mgidlana’s comments, not only was he possibly caused unnecessary harm, but readers were also not enabled to judge for themselves.
Mathopo also correctly points out that the journalist should have reported that he had been unable to obtain comment. Section 1.8 of the Code says, “… If the media are unable to obtain such comment, this shall be reported.”
The reason is to avoid any suspicion that a subject is unable or unwilling to respond (for nefarious reasons, possibly). Neglecting to do so also amounted to unfair reportage.
I do not believe, though, that the journalist deliberately sent his e-mail to the wrong address, as he also sent it to Mothapo’s (correct) one. I am therefore not agreeing with the spokesperson on his allegation of malice and manipulation.
Finding
The text was in breach of the following sections of the Code of Ethics and Conduct:
· 1.8: “[Reasonable] time should be afforded the subject for a response”;
· 1.8: “[If] the media are unable to obtain such comment, this shall be reported”;
· 1.1: “The media shall take care to report news … fairly”; and
· 3.3: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving … reputation.”
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of the Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1 – minor errors which do not change the thrust of the story), serious breaches (Tier 2), and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The breaches of the Code of Ethics and Conduct as indicated above are all Tier 2 offences.
Sanction
The Citizen is directed to apologise to Mgidlana for failing to:
· give him reasonable time to respond to the allegations levelled against him;
· report that the journalist could not obtain comment;
· and in this process failed to:
o report fairly; and
o exercise proper care and consideration regarding his reputation.
The newspaper is also asked to obtain comments on the matters raised in the complaint above and to report those comments in the same text – should Mgidlana / Mathopo still want to comment.
The newspaper is requested to publish:
· the apology upfront; and
· a headline containing the words “apology” or “apologises”, and “Mgidlana”.
The text should:
· indicate that Parliament has lodged the complaint with this office;
· end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”;
· be linked to the original story, stating that the apology came about as a result of the complaint;
· be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed; and
Appeal
The Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za.
Johan Retief
Press Ombud