Appeal Decision: Sbongiseni Ngcobo vs Daily Sun

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Cops hold boss hostage! – Commander told to pack his bag and go (published on 29 October 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 Col “Sthembiso” Ngcobo (the station commander) had been taken hostage by his own men upon arrival at the Lenasia “cop shop”. This had allegedly happened because members of the station “could no longer work under [him]”. They reportedly accused him of being abusive and insulting.

Ngcobo complained that:

• his name was spelt incorrectly – he was “Shongiseni” and not “Sthembiso”;
• the story incorrectly said that he got the “shock of his life” and that he had “run away”;
• his photograph was taken and published without his consent; and
• he was not asked for comment.

He Ombud dismissed the bulk of the complaint, mainly because:

• Ngcobo probably did get a “shock”;
• the story did not say that he had “run away” – only that he had “quickly” put his bags in his car “and left before his officers could carry out their threat to remove his car with a forklift”;
• a police office was a public place and Ngcobo was a public official – which meant that the newspaper had not been obliged to ask him for permission to take his picture or for permission to publish it;
• the matter was clearly in the public interest; and
• by Ngcobo’s own admission, he refused to speak to the reporter – which implied that the journalist did try to elicit comment from him.

Daily Sun was reprimanded for getting Ngcobo’s first name wrong.

Ngcobo then applied for leave to appeal.

Judge Ngoepe agreed with the Ombud’s ruling. He added that he sympathised with the fact that, ordinarily, being a serving police officer, he would not comment but rather refer the journalist to police spokespersons.  “This is what he should have told the reporter, instead of putting the phone down,” het opined.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

THE RULING ITSELF

SBONGISENI NGCOBO                                                APPLICANT

versus

MEDIA 24 LIMITED t/a DAILY SUN                             RESPONDENT

                                                                Matter 37/10/2014

[1]  The applicant is Sbongiseni Ngcobo, and the respondent is Media 24 Limited t/a Daily Sun.

[2]   On 18 November 2014 the respondent published a story, with the headline: “Cops hold boss hostage.” The sub-headline read “Commander told to pack his bag and go.”  The story was accompanied by a photograph of the applicant, taken at the police station where the applicant was the station commander; the photograph apparently depicted the applicant packing his bag.  The content of the story was that the applicant was ordered by his juniors to leave the station as they no longer wished to work with him; they had some complaints against him.

[3]   The applicant complaints were the following:

–      That the respondent gave him a wrong first name, namely, “Sthembiso” instead of calling him “Sbongiseni,” which was his correct one.

–      the story incorrectly stated that he got a shock of his life and that he ran away

–      his photograph had been taken and published without his consent

–      He was not asked for comment prior to publication.

[4]   The respondent admitted that it had given a wrong first name to the applicant, but did not respondent to the issue of the applicant’s denial that he was shocked.  Respondent argued that applicant had been given the opportunity to comment, but declined to do so.  Regarding the taking of the photo and its publication, respondent contended that it was entitled to do both: the photo was taken at a public place, to wit, a police station, and secondly, the applicant was a public figure (the station commander).

[5]   In his Ruling dated 18 November 2014, the Ombudsman dismissed all the complaints except the one about using a wrong first name on the applicant.  As regards the latter, he reprimanded the respondent; he did, however, decide against ordering the publication of the reprimand for fear of causing harm to the applicant.  The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against the Ombudsman’s Ruling.  The application is opposed by the respondent, on whose behalf rather lengthy submission, some 12 pages long, plus annexures, were put in.

[6]   A point in limine was raised against the application.  It was simply stated that the application for leave to appeal was filed out of time.  Regrettably, no date of the Ruling or of the date of filing of the application were stated in that paragraph.  This was a bit inconvenient because the reader of the submissions had to page back in search of the dates so as to compare.  I have decided to use my discretion and not uphold the point in limine.  Respondent has not shown what prejudice it would otherwise suffer; moreover, this is a simple matter which should reach finality as expeditiously as possible- an underlying tenet of the process.

[7]   Turning to the merits of the application itself, I agree with the approach and the reasons by the Ombudsman, which I need not repeat.  There is one point I want to clarify for the benefit of the applicant.  It is clear that he was approached for comment.  I sympathize with the fact that, ordinarily, being a serving police officer, he would not comment but refer the journalist to police spokespersons.  This is what he should have told the reporter, instead of putting the phone down.

[8]   The application for leave to appeal does not have any reasonable prospects of appeal, and it is therefore dismissed.

Dated this 6th day of January 2015

Judge B M Ngoepe: Chair; Appeals Panel