Appeal Decision: Lumko Mtimde vs City Press

LUMKO MTIMDE                                                                                         APPLICANT

AND

[1]     In its edition of 24 March 2015 City Press (“respondent”) published an article headlined “Lumko Mtimde falls off SABC board shortlist”; he being the applicant in this matter.  The article went on to say that he “could not be shortlisted because he couldn’t provide evidence for (sic) his qualifications.”  The applicant complained that respondent had cast doubt on the veracity of his qualifications, drawing parallels with the scenario around Ellen Tshabalala, the former Chair of the board of the South African Broadcasting Corporation.

[2]     The respondent, upon a query by the applicant, published an apology, stating that it did not intend to cast aspersions about applicant’s qualifications and apologized to any such impression created.  Respondent argued that the correction was prompt and was done as soon as correct information came to light.

[3]     The applicant was not happy with the correction and the apology.  He felt the apology was inadequate (“simple small apology”); the correction was apparently seen as inadequate.  He argued that respondent should “be fined and made to apologize.  The apology must be prominent, equal and same size to the article, and the headlines MUST prominently communicate their apology to me, my family and all”.  He said that he had never applied for the position, but was nominated.

[4]     The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint in his Ruling of 15 April 2015.  As he notes, he took into account the fact that respondent had immediately corrected the mistake on the same day, apologized and published applicant’s media release.  He held that respondent had adequately made amends, and therefore complied with article 2.6 of the Press Code.  I agree with the Press Ombudsman.  In his application for leave to appeal, applicant in effect contends that the Ombudsman did not take proper account of the impact of what the respondent said, as also the importance of prominence of apology.  I do not agree.  In my view, the Ombudsman took all of that into account.

[5]     For the reasons given by the Ombudsman, as well as those I give about, I find that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals panel; the application is therefore dismissed.

Dated this 13^th day of May 2015

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel