Appeal Decision: University of Venda vs. Sowetan
SUMMARY
The headline to the story in dispute read, Higher Education in Crisis – CEO (published on 17 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 was about FirstRand chief executive Sizwe Nxasana who reportedly had said that previously disadvantaged universities (including Univen) were producing unemployable third-class graduates. Nxasana also reportedly emphasised the need for more government investment to improve quality education.
Univen Vice-Chancellor and Principal Prof Peter Mbati wrote a letter to the editor, headlined FirstRand CEO ‘off mark’. The complaint was that the newspaper had omitted important information.
The Ombud said that he did not blame the newspaper for not publishing Mbati’s full response. However, he opined that the story did omit material information. Sowetan was directed to apologise to Univen for omitting material information from Mbati’s response, causing them some unnecessary harm and to publish the gist of Mbati’s response to the newspaper.
The newspaper then applied for leave to appeal.
Judge Ngoepe granted the application. He did not motivate his decision, as that could have influenced the relevant parties.
THE RULING ITSELF
Sowetan Applicant
Vs
University of Venda Respondent
Matter No 315/2013
Decision: Application for Leave to Appeal to the Appeals Panel
1.In its edition of 17 October 2013, Sowetan, the applicant, published a story with the headline “Higher Education in a crisis-CEO.” The content of the story lamented the poor quality of university graduates; it said that institutions produced unemployable graduates. The respondent, the University of Venda, being one of the centres of higher learning, did not take kindly to the story. The Principal and Vice-Chancellor wrote a letter in response to the respondent for publication, which was done on 23 October 2013.
2. In his letter, the principal gave a lot of information about the academic activities undertaken by the respondent; it seems this was meant to indicate that the university was committed to providing quality tertiary education. The respondent did not publish all these details; in fact, it is common cause that it left out almost all of them but one, without even indicating that others had been left out. As a result, the university felt that its letter had not been fairly dealt with, and therefore lodged the complaint.
3. In his Ruling dated 30 October 2013, the Ombudsman found that applicant had left out important information contained in the principal’s letter, and, by so doing, violated sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the Press Code. As sanction, he ordered applicant to apologize, and to publish the important information that had been left out. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Appeals Panel against the Ruling and the Sanction imposed.
4. The applicant contends that it was not under any obligation to publish the principal’s letter in the first place, let alone all of it, because it was merely reporting on what the speaker had said about poor graduates. Applicant also submits that while the information left out points to the ploughing of resources into education by the university, the ploughing of resources does not per se provide an answer to the issue raised by the speaker. Applicant also raises a procedural issue, namely, that it was not invited to make submissions to the Ombudsman before the latter considered the matter.
5. I am of the view that there are reasonable prospects of success that the applicant’s contention, that the mere ploughing of resources into providing quality education is not per se an answer to the issue raised by the speaker, may succeed; so too the argument that it was not obliged to publish the letter in the first place because, on this point, we need to distinguish the present case from the one where the story would have been generated by the applicant. It is not desirable that I elaborate in motivation of my above view. Regarding applicant’s complaint that it was not given the opportunity to put its case to the Ombudsman, it would of course be taken care of once leave to appeal is granted; applicant would be given the opportunity to argue its case fully before the Appeals Panel.
6. For the reason given above, leave is hereby granted to the applicant to appeal the Ruling and Sanction by the Ombudsman to the Appeals Panel.
Dated this 31st day of December 2013.
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel.
