Appeal Decision: Collen Maine vs Sunday Sun
Collen Maine Applicant
and
Sunday Sun Respondent
Matter: 11/01/2015
DECISION: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
[1] There appeared in Daily Sun’s (“respondent”) edition of 21 January 2015, Daily Sun a story under the heading “MEC IN BROKEN LOVE-NEST MESS”. The MEC referred to was Collen Maine (“the applicant”). The applicant’s attorneys wrote a letter dated 16 January 2015 to the respondent in which it is stated inter alia that “we intend to lodge a formal complaint” about the publication. It is not clear to me what was meant thereby, in particular whether they were in fact still going to lodge a complaint in the future. Furthermore, the letter, addressed to the Ombudsman read: “Reciprocally it is our request for your intervention and recourse …”. Again, I confess I do not comprehend this sentence. Thereafter followed reference to the rule of law and the principle of “audi al partem” (sic). Apparently the Public Advocate sought some clarification, because a further letter to the Public Advocate followed, dated 23 January 2015, which, inter alia, read: “We further extend our acknowledgement of receipt of the electronic mail received yesterday afternoon”. The letter quotes a number of statements from the article and simply states they were not true or were inaccurate, and simply says the respondent is put to the proof of the truth thereof. I do not believe that that was the best way to formulate, and lodge, a complaint with the office of the Ombudsman, especially by lawyers as opposed to a lay person acting on his/her own; it did not assist the Public Advocate much.
[2] Not surprisingly, the respondent wrote in response: “It is not indicated what Mr Collen Maine wants. A retraction, apology, setting the record straight? His legal team is only stating that the respondent needs to disprove the complaints.” They then offered to publish “a follow-up article to set the record straight”.
[3] The article complained of was about an affair between the applicant, a married man, and another woman. It said the applicant’s wife found them in applicant’s house, and started breaking windows. It also said applicant’s wife had a relationship with a white man. The respondent argued tha the applicant was a public figure; that they believed the article to be reasonably true as they had three sources; that they used the word “alleged” to indicate that these were mere allegations and also that the applicant was given the opportunity to respond, which he did not do. Respondent also said it had given balance and fairness to the article by publishing comments from applicant’s wife. Respondent insisted that it had a picture to prove that applicant’s wife was dating what it described a white man. It appeared in the end the applicant wanted a retraction of the article.
[4] In his Ruling of 6 March 2015 the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint. The Ombudsman notes that the respondent used three sources, a point not disputed by the applicant. I agree with the Ombudsman’s finding that the respondent ascribed what it said to sources. Applicant, being an MEC, was a public figure. It is also to be noted that his wife did not deny allegations when confronted by the journalist. The applicant’s contention in the application for leave to appeal either raises new issues, or obfuscate issues further.
5. I do not find fault with the approach and findings of the Press Ombudsman. For the reasons given above, as well as those given by the Ombudsman, there are no prospects that the Appeals Panel would order the retraction of the article as asked for by the applicant. The applicant leave to appeal to the Appeal Panel is therefore dismissed.
Dated this 29th day of March 2015.
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeal Panel.
