Appeal Decision: Nkosinathi Mapumulo vs Sunday World

SUMMARY

The headlines to the story in dispute read, Love on the rocks – Black Coffee fights to save unhappy home; and, DJ’s wife feels betrayed, hurt – actress Mbali Mlothswa ‘drained’ by side chick drama (published on 22 June 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 said that DJ, producer, singer, and songwriter Black Coffee and his wife had been going for marriage counselling “in an effort to save their faltering union”. This came “after allegations surfaced suggesting that the DJ has been drinking on the lips of Egoli’s floozies behind his wife’s back”.

Black Coffee complained that the story falsely and misleadingly stated that he was an adulterer, that his marriage was on the rocks, and that he was an irresponsible husband. He added that the journalist had used a single source and had based the story on rumours which had led to distortions and misrepresentations – which, in turn, had harmed his reputation and infringed his rights to privacy and dignity.

The Ombud dismissed the complaint, mainly because:

• the story quoted three independent sources – one, a nurse at the hospital where Black Coffee allegedly underwent marriage counselling, and a third, who was a “close associate” of the DJ’s wife; and
• Black Coffee was a public figure – which meant that he had less right to privacy than ordinary citizens.

Mapumulo then applied for leave to appeal.

Judge Ngoepe dismissed the application, saying that he fully agreed with the Ombud’s ruling.

THE FINDING ITSELF

NKOSINATHI MAPUMULO                                           APPLICANT

versus

SUNDAY WORLD                                                           RESPONDENT

                                                                Matter 17/07/2014

[1]  The Applicant is Nkosinathi Mapumulo, also known as “Black Coffee”.  The Respondent is the Sunday World.  The Applicant lodged a complaint against the Respondent following a story which was published by the Respondent on 22 June 2014.  The headline, on the front page, read: “Love on the rocks – Black Coffee fights to save unhappy home.”  The story was on page 2, with a headline “DJ’s wife feels betrayed, hurts” and “Actress Mabli Mlotshwa ‘drained’ by side chick drama.”  The essence of the story was really about the unfaithfulness of the Applicant towards his wife, and that their marriage was in trouble.

[2]   The complaint was that the story was false and misleading in saying that the complainant had extra-marital affairs; that his marriage was on the rocks and dissolving faster than Cremora in a hot cup of coffee.  He complained that his reputation and dignity were harmed, and right of privacy infringed.  Appellant further complained that the journalist relied on one source only.  The Respondent’s response was to challenge the Applicant to point out any inaccuracies in the story; it maintained that the Applicant and his wife were indeed undergoing some marriage counselling.  Respondent also argued that it got the information from more than one source; in fact, from three independent and reliable sources; it also stated that the headline on the front page merely suggested that the marriage was in trouble.  Finally, Respondent stated that both the Applicant and his wife declined to comment, when offered the opportunity to do so; the story was balanced.

[3]   In his Ruling dated 28 August 2014, the Ombudsman dismissed all the complaints; hence this application.

[4]   The Ombudsman gave his reasons with which I fully agree.  Briefly, he found that the Respondent went so far as to describe each of the three sources of information.  He also found that the Applicant was a public figure and that although harm could come his way, the factor of public interest was overriding.

[5]   In his Application for Leave to Appeal, the Applicant re-iterates right of privacy; indeed, going so far as to suggest that the extra-marital activities were a private matter into which the Applicant had never invited the Respondent.  I am afraid the Applicant misses the point made by the Ombudsman: he is a public figure, and the media needed no invitation to write about his private life.  As a married man and a public figure, the public interest factor weighed heavily.  It is noteworthy that the Applicant does not deny the truth of the allegations; in this respect, it is important to mention that both the Applicant and his wife declined to comment when given the opportunity to do so.

[6]   For the reasons given above, as also for those given by the Ombudsman, I hold that the Applicant has no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; the application is therefore dismissed.

Dated this 31^st day of October 2014

Judge B M Ngoepe: Chair; Appeals Panel