Ruling by the Press Ombud
10 June 2017
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr WC Matshoge and those of Abdul Milazi, editor of the Sunday World newspaper.
WC Matshoge is complaining about a story in Sunday World of 7 May 2017. The front-page headline read, Dead MEC draws salary – Late Joy Matshoge paid for 6 months after her death. The story itself appeared on page 7 and was headlined, MEC paid salary for six months after her death – R68 000 dinner set also a ‘late’ buy.
Complaint
Matshoge complains that the:
· headline stated as fact that his deceased wife had received a salary for six months, while the story reported this as merely an allegation;
· journalist did not give him a right of reply; and
· publication of his wife’s casket was not in the public interest and that the newspaper disrespected her privacy and dignity.
The text
The article, written by Aubrey Mothombeni, said that deceased Limpopo agriculture MEC Joy Matshoge had allegedly been drawing a salary from the grave. Her successor, Mapula Mokaba-Phukwana, reportedly blew the whistle on the allegations that her predecessor received a salary for six months after her death.
The late MEC also allegedly ordered expensive dishes to the tune of R68 000 in August last year, two months after her death.
Mothombeni wrote the details of Matshoge’s continued posthumous remuneration were uncovered by Mokaba-Phukwana after she joined the department.
Matshoge's secretary, Matete Duba, was reportedly kicked out of the MEC’s office by Mokaba-Phukwana – allegedly for hiding Matshoge's pay slips from July until December.
The MEC then reported the matter for investigation.
Sunday World responds
Milazi says the story was not about Mr Matshoge, nor did it claim that he had received his deceased wife’s pay, but about his wife’s successor, Mokaba-Phukwana, who had raised this issue. He says that, because Mr Matshoge was not implicated in the matter, he was not relevant to the story and therefore the newspaper did not ask him for comment.
He says the newspaper published a picture of the casket (together with a picture of the deceased next to the casket) to show that she really had died and was buried.
Regarding the headline, the editor says there appeared to be no dispute about monies being paid out – doubt remained only about where the money went. He mentions that the Premier’s office recently notified the newspaper that monies were indeed paid out – not as a salary, but as a bonus due to Ms Matshoge.
He concludes, “ ‘Drawing a salary’ does not mean physically cashing the money, and obviously the deceased cannot possibly do that,”
Analysis
The matter was in the public interest, as Matshoge was a public official. It was also newsworthy in that Matshoge’s successor had raised the issue and reported the matter to the relevant authorities for investigation.
Milazi correctly points out that Mr Matshoge was not mentioned in the story, nor was it suggested that he had received his late wife’s money – which is why he was not the subject of critical reportage (which would have obliged Sunday World to ask him for comment, as stipulated in Section 1.8 of the Code).
The editor’s argument about the headline is also sound. The words “draws salary” were obviously not meant literally and it seems not to be in dispute that monies relating to her had been paid out posthumously.
I fully understand Matshoge’s discomfort with the publication of his wife’s casket (with a picture of her next to it), but I also need to keep in mind that she was a public figure and that the story was in the public interest (as pubic funds were in question).
I need to remind the editor, though, about Section 1.9 which states, “Where a news item is published on the basis of limited information … the reports should be supplemented once new information becomes available.” The newspaper is duty-bound to do a follow-up story about the new information it received on this matter, as indicated by Milazi.
Finding
The complaint is dismissed.
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