Tuwani Mulaudzi vs. The Sunday Independent

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Tuwani Mulaudzi and those of Ms Abigail Oliver, legal counsel for Independent Newspapers.

Complaint

Businessman and chairman of a large black business consortium Tuwani Mulaudzi is complaining about an article published in The Sunday Independent newspaper of 7 September 2014, headlined R48m blunder by Old Mutual.

He complains that he was not given the opportunity to respond to the allegations made in the story, and that the reporter neglected to mention that he had filed opposing papers.

The text

The story, written by Fatima Schroeder, says that Mulaudzi was under investigation by the Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) for fraud and money laundering that cost Old Mutual close to R100-million.

Analysis

Oliver points this office to two follow-up stories published on September 14 and 21 respectively, which were headlined:

• Mulaudzi: ‘AFU on wrong tack, the money is all mine’; and
• Mulaudzi can get his R48m back – judge.

The first article contains Mulaudzi’s denial and states his side of the story, namely that he could not steal his own money. The second reports that Western Cape High Court Judge President John Hlophe “vindicated” Mulaudzi, setting aside a provisional restraint order obtained against him by the AFU.

She also indicated that the story in question was based on court documents, and that the reporter was therefore not obliged to ask for comment.

However, Mulaudzi is not satisfied with the newspaper’s response – he wants an apology for the initial story that had “damaged my reputation without them getting my side of the story”. He also wants the paper to report that he had instituted a damages lawsuit against the National Prosecuting Authority, Nedbank and Old Mutual.

He adds, amongst others, that the reporter:

• did not inform the public that he had opposed the AFU application;
• had not done her homework; if she did, she would have ascertained that the allegations of criminal charges against him were baseless;
• failed to understand that he never took out a policy with Old Mutual – instead, he had invested money over a period of five years with a return of R48-m; and
• falsely claimed that the R8-m criminal investigation by Nedbank was a separate matter.

He concludes: “…to suggest that to be wealthy when you are black in this country is a sin… This is an agenda to destroy black people and I say no to this…” He implores the media to refuse to be used for the pursuit of narrow racist interests and destructive agendas.

My considerations

The initial story reported on court documents – which it was justified to do, without asking Mulaudzi for comment.

I agree, though, that it would have been better if the story mentioned that he had filed opposing papers.

However, the first follow-up article recorded his side of the story, and the second adequately reported that he had won the court case and got his money back.

If the newspaper breached the Press Code in its initial story, which is not at all a given, it certainly has made amends with its follow-up reporting.

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

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