Appeal Decision: Mia R, R and S vs The Star
SUMMARY
The headline to the story in dispute read, Sacked official wants all charges dropped – Accused denies claims of having received two cars (published on 10 March 2014).
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 reported that Desmond Simamane, a sacked national Department of Public Works official who was facing fraud and corruption charges involving R40-million “along with Joburg property mogul Sayed Hoosen Mia”, wanted all charges against him dropped. This article referred to another article, published on 2 October 2013, where a picture of Mia was used prominently, together with a smaller one of the father and his two sons. The story in dispute used these same pictures.
Drs Reza and Ridwan Mia, as well as Sayed Mia, complained that the:
- mentioning of R40-million in connection with fraud and corruption charges was false/misleading;
- use of the picture including the two doctors was irrelevant and unnecessarily harmful; and
- mentioning of the views of the whistleblower was portrayed as facts, thus prejudicing the court case (which was about fraud and corruption).
The Ombud dismissed the complaint, mainly because the:
- journalist said he got his information from the legal advisor to the Minister – and he had no reason to disbelieve him;
- story was also about Sayed Mia – which justified the newspaper to publish his picture;
- article did not indicate that Sayed’s two sons were part of a syndicate;
- publication was not obliged to get their permission to publish their pictures; and
- report did not present the whistleblower’s views as facts.
Reza, Ridwan and Sayed Mia the applied for leave to appeal.
Judge Ngoepe agreed with the Ombud’s ruling, saying that there was nothing wrong in publishing the pictures. “Mr Mia himself specifically brought his two doctor sons into the picture, clearly to bolster his application for admission to bail. Given the context of the case, the focus being on the official, I don’t think there is a message of a syndicate in relation to the two sons.”
The application for leave to appeal was turned down.
THE RULING ITSELF
MIA R, R AND S APPLICANTS
versus
THE STAR RESPONDENT
DECISION: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE APPEALS PANEL
[1] The Applicants are Drs R and R Mia, and their father, Mr Sayed Mia. The Respondent is The Star. The Applicants lodged complaints against the Respondent, which complaints were all dismissed by the Ombudsman in his Ruling dated 4 July 2014.
[2] Mr S Mia was charged with corruption, along with, inter alia, a government official, Mr Simamane. The Respondent produced three stories related to this. There were also pictures of Mr Mia and his two sons.
[3] The complaints, as summarized by the Ombudsman, were:
·the mentioning of R40m in connection with the fraud and corruption charges was false or misleading.
·The use of the pictures of Drs R and R Mia (accused’s sons) were irrelevant and unnecessary and depicted them as a syndicate.
·The views of the whistle-blower were presented as facts, thus prejudicing the pending criminal case.
[4] The crux of the story was about a government official facing dismissal, in connection with charges of corruption, involving an amount of R40m, between himself and, inter alia, the complainant’s father, Mr Sayed Hoosen Mia. The complainants say that the amount of R40m was not mentioned in the charge sheet. The journalist, on the other hand, says he got the figure from the Minister’s legal adviser. The Ombudsman had no reason to doubt that the journalist did in fact get the information from where he said he got it from. I agree with him.
[5] As far as the use of the pictures is concerned, the complainants say that this was vindictive and unbecoming, because the story was about the government official. The use of the picture, they contend, was irrelevant and unnecessary and harmful to the two brothers. The Star’s response is that it was the father himself who, in support of his application for bail, mentioned in his affidavit to the court that he had two sons who were medical doctors. He himself chose to mention the two sons and their profession, for that matter in exclusion of his other son who was also a professional, but apparently not a medical doctor. For this reason, contended the Respondent, it was entitled to use the pictures of the two sons.
[6] The Ombudsman’s view was that the case was not only about the public official, but also about Sayed Mia. Secondly, that although the story did not refer to the two sons, it was Sayed Mia himself who had mentioned them in court. There was therefore nothing wrong in using their pictures. Thirdly, the story did not convey that the two sons were a part of a syndicate. Finally, the Respondent was not obliged to get permission to use the pictures of the two sons, given the context.
[7] The Ombudsman also found that the views of the whistle-blower were not presented as facts.
[8] In my view, there was nothing wrong in publishing the pictures. Mr Mia himself specifically brought his two doctor sons into the picture, clearly to bolster his application for admission to bail. Given the context of the case, the focus being on the official, I don’t think there is a message of a syndicate in relation to the two sons. For the above reasons, considered together with those given by the Ombudsman, I do not think that there are any reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is turned down.
Dated this 29th day of October 2014
Judge B M Ngoepe: Chair; Appeals Panel