Rachard Samuel vs. Sunday Independent2

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Public Works finalising probe into police lease cas (published on 14 July 2013).

This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

 

The story said that the Department of Public Works had spent over R5-million on salaries of suspended officials for their involvement in two multi-million-rand police head office leases in Pretoria and Durban.

Rachard Samuel, a former deputy-director of the Inner-City Regeneration at the Department of Public Works, complained that both the story and the headline erroneously linked him to corruption regarding police lease cases, and that it omitted to refer to charges that he had been found not guilty of. The complaint mainly centred on the statement that he “was found guilty on charges related to alleged payments for his own benefit”.

Retief dismissed the complaint, saying that:

• neither the story nor the headline said or implied that Samuel had been linked to lease fraud, mainly because:
  • he was not part of the gist of the story;

• • the use of the word “meanwhile”, after references about suspended officials who still received salaries, coupled with a reference to his dismissal, made it clear that what was about to follow might have had nothing to do with lease fraud at all; and
  • the next sentence that mentioned Samuel had confirmed this – it did not mention leases but rather referred to charges related to alleged payments for his own benefit (that he had been found guilty of).

• the headline reasonably reflected the content of the story; and
• the omissions were not central to the article – one could not reasonably expect a newspaper to include all the facts about a person in a story, especially not if that person was not central to the article, the Ombud argued.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Rachard Samuel and Moshoeshoe Monare, editor of The Sunday Independent newspaper.

Complaint

Mr Samuel, a former Deputy-Director of the Inner-City Regeneration at the Department of Public Works, complains about a story headlined Public Works finalising probe into police lease cases in The Sunday Independent, published on 14 July 2013.

Samuels complains that both the story and the headline erroneously linked him to corruption regarding police lease cases, and also omitted to refer to charges that he had been found not guilty of.

Analysis

The story, written by Candice Baily, said that the Department of Public Works has spent over R5-million on salaries of suspended officials for their involvement in two multi-million rand police head office leases in Pretoria and Durban.

Erroneously linked to corrupt leases

The story

The story mentions the following about Samuel (in total):

• “Meanwhile, two dismissed officials – Rachard Samuel and… – have approached the General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council to appeal their dismissals”;
• “Samuel, a deputy director-general of Inner-City Regeneration at the department, was found guilty on charges related to alleged payments for his own benefit”; and
• “Samuel confirmed that he was awaiting a date for the council to hear his arbitration but would not comment any further. The Sunday Independent understands that one of Samuel’s main arguments will be that the chairman presiding over the hearing contradicted himself in his findings.”

The second bullet above is clearly the one in contention.

Samuel complains that the story in dispute wrongly implied that he had benefitted from payments arising out of the police leases, arguing that this reportage has defamed him. He refers to a finding of mine in December 2012 in which I stated that the story (also published in The Sunday Independent, about the same matter) erroneously linked him to lease fraud. He then argues that the story presently in dispute was in contravention of my earlier finding.

In this finding, I stated that Samuel was found guilty on charges of having received bribe money, but that he was not involved in any lease agreements (as said or implied in that story).

The question now is if the story in dispute either said or implied that he was linked to lease fraud.

I note the following:

• The story consisted of five columns; the first reference to Samuel is only in the fourth column – clearly, he was not part of the gist of the story;
• While the first three columns were about suspended officials who still received salaries, the first reference to Samuel started with the word “meanwhile”, coupled with a reference to his dismissal – together, these two considerations should have made it clear that what was about to follow may have had nothing to do with lease fraud at all; and
• The next sentence that mentioned Samuel confirmed this – it does not mention leases, but indeed referred to charges related to alleged payments for his own benefit (that he had been found guilty of).

It is reasonable to conclude that neither the text of the story nor its context either said or implied that Samuels were implied in lease fraud.

The headline

The headline mentions the words “lease cases”, and Samuel complains that this implicated him in lease fraud.

Not so. No headline can cover every aspect of a story, especially not in cases such as this one where the story is quite lengthy. Section 10.1 of the Press Code requires headlines to give a reasonable reflection of the content of the story – which is exactly what this headline did.

Omissions

Samuel complains that the story omitted to refer to the fact that he had been found not guilty on several charges. He notes that I have stated in my earlier ruling that it was unfair to have neglected to mention this fact (as without it the proper context was lacking).

 

That is true, but only partly so. I indeed stated that his “not guilty” findings should have been reported, but as motivation for this I said, “as he was the main focus of the story”. In this case, he was not.

Moreover, one cannot reasonably expect a newspaper to include all facts about a person in a story, especially not if that person is not central to the article.

Finding

The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

Appeal

Our 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 Adjudication Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Johan Retief

Press Ombudsman