Appeal Decision: Prega Padayachee vs. Public Eye

SUMMARY

The headline to a letter to the editor read, Disgusted by behaviour of Temple officials during firewalking (published on 18 April 2013).

This ruling by the Chair of the Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

The letter, written by Parm Naidoo, accused Prega Padayachee, who was involved in the activities of a Hindu temple in Pietermaritzburg, of some misbehaviour regarding a recent temple fire-walking activity in Pietermaritzburg.

Padayachee complained that he had not been asked to comment, and that the allegations were false and did cause him harm.

The Ombud dismissed the first part of the complaint. The second one was upheld: without making a finding on whether the allegations were true or not, the Ombudsman ruled that the publication “was not justified to publish the allegations…at the time of going to press”.

Public Eye was directed to apologise to Padayachee for publishing those statements, thereby harming his dignity and reputation without enough justification to do so.

The rest of the complaint was dismissed, because it was not normal journalistic practice to ask for comment on a letter to the editor and the author’s name had been published.

The newspaper then applied for leave to appeal.

Judge Ngoepe dismissed the application, as he agreed with the Ombud’s ruling.

THE RULING ITSELF

In the matter of:               Application 109/2013

Public Eye                                                     Applicant

Vs

Prega Padayachee                                             Respondent

__________________________________________________

1. The applicant published a letter which alleged that the respondent, an official at a Hindu temple in Pietermaritzburg, blatantly and barbarically pushed away women out of the way who were in a trance state during a ceremony.
2. The respondent lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman that, firstly, he was not asked to comment, and that the allegations were false and did cause him harm. The first complaint was dismissed by the Ombudsman. The second one was upheld: without making a finding on whether the allegations were true or not, the Ombudsman ruled that the applicant “was not justified to publish the allegations…at the time of going to press”. He ordered that a corrective article be published, which he crafted.
3. The applicant complains that the letter constituted fair comment. I disagree; I agree with the Ombudsman that applicant was not entitled to publish the letter under the circumstances. The applicant also complains that it was not given the opportunity to respond to the complaints. I do not agree. A copy of the complaint was sent to applicant. It responded “off the record”, and said that a formal response would be sent by the next Friday. When this did not happen, the office of the Ombudsman reminded applicant. What the applicant then did was to submit a tentative response, with some reservations. It was up to the applicant to decide how to respond, or at all; it cannot now complain that it has not been given the opportunity to respond.
4. I endorse the reasons given by the Ombudsman, and rule that the application be and is hereby dismissed.

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chairperson, Appeals Panel.

14 August 2013