Lwazi Mzozoyana vs. Sunday Times

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Lwazi Mzozoyana and those of Susan Smuts, legal editor of the Sunday Times newspaper.

Complaint

Mzozoyana is complaining about a story in Sunday Times of 15 March 2015, headlined Is this SA’s worst campus cheat? – Law student banned from university until 2022.

He complains that:

·         four statements were incorrect (details below);

·         the newspaper contacted him too late for comment; and

·         the headline was inaccurate, defamatory and not a true reflection of the content of the story.

Mzozoyana also wants to know how the newspaper:

·         got hold of confidential information;

·         “established” that he owed the university R100 000; and

·         verified its information that he had applied to the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) in February.

The text

The story, written by Prega Govender, said that Mzozoyana had been unmasked as one of South Africa’s worst academic cheats and that he had been barred from Rhodes University until July 2022. This was reportedly a reduced sanction, as he had initially been barred for life. In 2012, Mzozoyana had reportedly been found guilty of stealing two fellow students’ assignments from locked posting boxes on campus and subsequently passing off their work as his own.

The story said that this was not his first offence.

Govender quoted Ms Susan Smailes, legal adviser to the vice-chancellor at Rhodes, saying an aggravating factor in this case was the “complete lack of remorse” on Mzozoyana’s part for having jeopardized the academic careers of two fellow students.

Smailes was quoted as saying, “He’s a shocker and he still wants to be a lawyer. I said to the public protector: ‘Is this someone you want to be a lawyer in our country’?”

While the university had declined to disclose his identity, the story said that the newspaper was able to establish it.

Analysis

‘Incorrect’ statements

Mzozoyana complains that the following statements are incorrect, namely that he:

·         was barred from Rhodes until 2010 – instead, he returned to the university in that year;

·         brought an application to the High Court in 2012 – that matter was unrelated to his ban;

·         owed an amount of R100 000 to the university; and

·         had been issued with summons for money owed.

Smuts submits that Sunday Times has approached 23 South African universities, including Rhodes, with questions related to plagiarism and academic misconduct involving students as well as academic staff. Rhodes volunteered the information concerning Mzozoyana – it said he had been convicted on two counts of fraud and two of theft after stealing two students’ LLB assignments from posting boxes, removing the front covers and reposting them with new covers bearing his name. The legal editor adds that Smailes has confirmed this to the newspaper in writing, as well as during a telephonic interview. She also revealed that Mzozoyana had initially been barred from Rhodes for life, but that a committee later reduced the sentence to ten years. The newspaper says Mzozoyana has correctly pointed out that his first sanction was for two years. “This means that he was not allowed to return to the university in 2008 and 2009. Our reporting was correct.” Smuts says the information supplied by the university was that Mzozoyana had approached the court on an urgent basis for an order interdicting Rhodes from implementing the sanction. “If this was not the reason for his high court application, perhaps Mr Mzozoyana can provide us with a copy of the court documents which prove otherwise.” She adds that the information about a cost order of R85 596 for Rhodes and against Mzozoyana was also garnered from the university, and that the university had found him guilty of stealing two fellow students’ assignments from locked posting boxes on campus and passing off their work as his own.

Mzozoyana replies that while it is correct that he approached the high court on the basis of obtaining an interdict against his exclusion from Rhodes University, it is incorrect that he approached the court for relief in relation to his exclusion as a result of the theft of an assignment and fraud “as reported in the article”. He says he approached the court for an interdict in order to stop the university from excluding him based on an unrelated and unproven case of assault.

My considerations

I have no reason to believe that Sunday Times is fabricating its statement that it relied on information supplied by Rhodes University. Therefore, I accept that the newspaper was justified in publishing that information.

The matter of Mzozoyana’s reason for approaching the court is not material to the story.

Contacted too late

Mzozoyana complains that the newspaper contacted him too late for comment. He says that he only accessed the Facebook message on the day of publication, and that he also read the e-mail message on that day.

Smuts says the newspaper made every effort to contact him prior to publication. The reporter tried to contact him via Facebook, and he was also e-mailed on Saturday (as the journalist only got hold of his address on that day). Moreover, Govender asked Rhodes for Mzozoyana’s contact details on two occasions, but the university declined her requests. Other attempts were made as well, but they were also to no avail. The newspaper did get hold of two cellphone numbers – but they were being used by other people. The legal editor says Mzozoyana responded on Sunday, saying: “Please may you forward any queries or comments to the office of the public protector [as] I have taken my complaint against Rhodes university to them. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to make comments at this time.” The next day (a Monday) he contacted Govender, asking for a right of reply. He was offered an opportunity to reply and he promised to get back to the reporter, but never did.

Mzozoyana replies that the Office of the Public Protector confirmed to him that it had commented on the matter – however, the comments were not reflected in the story. “It is submitted that this omission was deliberate and reflects the dishonest manner in which the article was written.”

He claims Smuts has admitted that Smailes gave the newspaper his direct contact number. “It is simply not reasonably and possibly true to state that they would not have my contact details. They deliberately did not make the effort to contact me on my details provided to them. It is insufficient to send a message in via Facebook as a means of contact.”

Mzozoyana argues that Sunday Times has not provided any proof that it sought assistance from a school friend. “I would insist that the paper prove such a relationship.”

He concludes that there was no urgency to the story and that the newspaper could have waited for his response before going to print.

My considerations

Firstly, it is not true – as Mzozoyana suggests – that Smuts has admitted that the university provided the newspaper with his direct contact number. On the contrary – see the newspaper’s defence on this issue above.

I also note that Mzozoyana does not deny that he told the newspaper that it would be inappropriate for him to comment at that time.

Given this initial reluctance to comment, and taking into account the newspaper’s attempts to get hold of him, as well as its statement in the report that it could not reach him for comment, I do not believe that Mzozoyana has a leg to stand on regarding this issue.

Also, the newspaper’s alleged attempt to trace him through a school friend is not central to the issue at hand.

Headline

Mzozoyana complains that the headline was inaccurate, defamatory and not a true reflection of the content of the story.

Smuts replies that the headline was phrased as a question and not as a statement of fact. The words “worst cheat” referred to his original life ban from Rhodes – “[n]ot many students are meted out this severe form of sanction…Rhodes described Mr Mzozoyana’s matter as ‘the most serious student academic offence that it has run’.” She also notes that there were two other stories on the same page covering other university cheats. Mzozoyana replies that a question posed without comparative facts ceases to be a question and by implication becomes rhetorical.

My considerations

The fact that Mzozoyana was first banned for life, and that the sanction was later reduced to ten years, surely indicates that the university had to deal with, in this instance, unusually serious misconduct. I agree that the headline is unfortunate, given the fact that he was not compared to other cases (as Mzozoyana rightly notes), but I do not believe that this is sufficient to transform the question into a rhetorical statement.

Mzozoyana’s questions

Mzozoyana wants to know how the newspaper:

·         got hold of confidential information;

·         “established” that he owed the university R100 000; and

·         verified its information that he had applied to Wits University in February.

Smuts says the newspaper got its information about Mzozoyana’s application for admission to Wits through a university source it cannot disclose. The journalist also saw a document dated February 2015 from Wits to Rhodes, querying Mzozoyana’s transcript from that university which contained the word “unsatisfactory”. “Wits asked for a letter from Rhodes to clarify the issue.” In addition, Smailes confirmed in writing that Mzozoyana owed Rhodes more than R100 000 (of which R85 596 was the cost order and the remainder was for unpaid fees). The newspaper also relied on Mr Justin Powers, a lawyer who represented Mzozoyana during his Rhodes fraud and theft hearing, who confirmed that he had issued summons against Mzozoyana for money owed.

My considerations

The newspaper has responded satisfactorily to Mzozoyana’s questions – even though it could have argued that the matters raised by him were really none of his business.

General comments

In Mzozoyana’s reply to the newspaper’s response, he adds a few complaints that were not included in his original submission. The newspaper did not have an opportunity to respond to those matters, and I have therefore not dealt with his new issues.

For example, Mzozoyana now denies that he was found guilty of cheating in an examination.

He also submits that black students at Rhodes University continuously receive maximum sentences for offences, while white students seemingly are given minimum sentences. Again, I cannot entertain this as I am not investigating the university.

In addition, Mzozoyana argues that Sunday Times should have detected irregularities in the sanctions meted out by the university. Whether such irregularities exist or not, the story did not presume to portray the disciplinary environment at Rhodes – it was about an example it had identified by surveying South African universities. Surely, the newspaper was justified in doing its job.

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

Appeal

Our Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Johan Retief

Press Ombudsman