Appeal Decision: Bonginkosi Mabaso vs Ilanga

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Ukhala ezimathonsi odivoswe isinyenyela (published on 14 October 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 story said that Xoliswa Mabaso claimed that her ex-husband, Bonginkosi Mabaso, had promised her that he was going to give her half of the money from the sale of the house and that she would get R3 000 every month, as well as part of his pension fund. However, she said that she only got R20 000 from the sale of the house, which had been sold for R450 000 – that was the only money she got despite all the promises that her husband had made.

Bonginkosi Mabaso complained that he was:

• not given sufficient time to respond to the reporter’s questions; and
• quoted incorrectly on the statement that he had given money to his wife or had made any promise to this effect.

The Ombud dismissed the complaint, because:

• the reporter spoke to Mabaso on a phone a day before publication long before deadline – a call that had lasted for 10 minutes and 40 seconds; and
• Mabaso did not deny the newspaper’s statement that he had not adequately responded to questions that the reporter put to him – if he was misquoted, the major part of the blame was on his shoulders.

Mabaso then applied for leave to appeal.

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

He added that Mabaso had:

• clearly not been interested in engaging with the journalist as the former had regarded the issue as a “private matter”; and
• disputed that his ex-wife was paid only R20,000 for the house but he did not specify how much she had been paid.

THE RULING ITSELF

Mabaso, Bonginkosi Jacob                                         Applicant

Vs

Ilanga                                                                         Respondent

Matter No: 337/2013

Decision: Application for Leave to Appeal to the Appeals Panel

1.Respondent published a story with the headline “Ukhala ezimathonsi odivoswe isinyenyela.”  The story was published on 14 October 2013, and it was about the divorce between complainant, the applicant, and his former wife. The story said that applicant had failed to honour certain promises he had made to his former wife; in particular, that he would pay her R3000.00 per month, and, secondly, to share with her proceeds from the sale of what was the parties’ common house and, thirdly, to pay her part of his pension monies. The former wife was reported as saying that she was paid only R20,000.00 for a house which was allegedly sold for R450,000.00., and the R3,000.00 per month promised also never kept. The story also said that the former wife said she had for several years not been aware that she had been divorced.

2. The applicant’s complaint, dismissed by the Ombudsman in his Ruling of 16 November 2013, was that he had not been given the opportunity by the journalist to present his own version. The journalist insisted that the applicant was given the chance, but that he was not keen to answer questions; instead, he kept on saying that they were free to write what his former wife told them. This would amount to saying he was not interested in engaging the journalist, and that the latter could write whatever he wanted to write. I find the journalist’s version to be consistent with applicant’s attitude, which he twice expressed, that he regarded the issue to be a “private matter” (his own emphasis as well). Also noteworthy is that, although applicant seeks to deny that the ex-wife was paid only R20,000.00 for the house, he does not in his statement say how much she has been paid; instead of telling how much, he says he is not the conveyancer, an obvious fact which in any event does not go anywhere towards answering the query.

3. In his Ruling, the Ombudsman found that the applicant had been given the opportunity to put his own version; he found that the journalist had devoted no less than 10 minutes in trying to speak to the applicant. I agree with the Ombudsman.

4. For the reasons I give in paragraph 2 above, as well as for those given by the Ombudsman, with which I fully agree, I hold that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success on appeal; the application for leave to appeal to the Appeals Panel is therefore dismissed.

Dated this 31^st day of December 2013

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel.