Louis Wulff vs. Daily Dispatch
Introduction
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Louis Wulff of the Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality (BCMM), and those of Bongani Siqoko, Editor-In-Chief of the Daily Dispatch newspaper.
Wulff submits his complaint in his capacity as a senior human resources manager involved in the approval process of the appointment in question (below). At the time he was the Acting Director of Corporate Services and the recruitment function was under his control.
I notice that Wulff, in his response to the newspaper’s reply to his complaint, touches on issues that were not raised in his initial complaint. I cannot entertain those matters.
Complaint
Wulff is complaining about a story in the Daily Dispatch of 8 August 2015, headlined Voice tape implicates city boss in job fixing.
He complains that the following statements in the news report were false / unsubstantiated / misleading, namely that:
· the City Manager, Mr Andile Fani, forged or altered job requirements to suit a specific candidate for the post of General Manager: Revenue Management (Mr Siya Peter) – these allegations had been made by unidentified sources;
· Peter did not meet the advertised minimum requirements in terms of both education and experience;
· a panel’s recommendations may have been altered;
· other, better qualified, senior staff had been overlooked for the post;
· the above had also happened in other cases involving South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) shop stewards; and
· other senior government officials were linked to allegations of seriously fraudulent activities.
In general, Wulff says that the article provided its information in a negative context, “…which is believed to be selectively published with an apparent intention to mislead readers as to the true state of affairs and to discredit the BCMM…”
The text
The story, written by senior reporter Bongani Fuzile, said that BCMM general manager Andile Fani could be charged with fraud after he appeared to have implicated himself in forgery or alteration of job requirements to favour his preferred candidate (Peter). “The startling admission was made in a threatening voicemail message Fani left on a cellphone belonging to Peter…”
The office of the council speaker was reportedly investigating the contents and authenticity of the material (which had since been recorded as an audio file). “Fani comes across as wanting to make it clear to Peter that he should never forget what [he] had done for him and why Fani deserved his loyalty.” In the voicemail Fani reportedly can be heard saying that while Peter did not meet the requirements, “[we] change (sic) the recommends (sic) for you. So if you think that you (are) going to be big to other people, we’ll have a problem.”
Analysis
Forging, altering job requirements
The story said, “Buffalo City Metro boss, Andile Fani, could be charged with fraud after it appeared that he had implicated himself in forging or altering job requirements to favour his preferred candidate (Peter) for a top city job.”
Wulff denies that Fani has forged or altered job requirements, or has caused this to be done, to suit Peter.
He says that, prior to 2007, minimum requirements for senior financial posts were detailed in Chapter 5 of the Government Gazette No 29967, which covered Peter’s post. However, these requirements were “incorrect”. This was noted and the matter was referred to a sub-committee of the Local Labour Forum of the BCMM. The sub-committee agreed in July 2013 to amend the requirements.
Wulff says in this specific case, the advertisement first published in the Daily Dispatch on 12 September 2011 included the incorrect conditions. “These incorrect requirements are those reported in the article…as being applicable to the post of General Manager Revenue Management.”
He continues, “This resulted in the post being re-advertised on 16 October 2014 (sic – it was 16 October 2013) in the Daily Dispatch.”
He emphasises that the newspaper had this information at its disposal. “There is thus absolutely no excuse for the Daily Dispatch to have reported on such known, obvious and blatantly incorrect information.”
Wulff also notes that the newpaper has written at least two articles referencing the provisions of the Government Gazette. “The Daily Dispatch thus had the full opportunity to source the relevant legislative information governing this matter.” He adds that Fani was not a member of the relevant sub-committee – his only role was to consider amendments proposed, which he did (and approved) in this case.
He contends that the newspaper has breached the Press Code by sourcing unreliable, untrustworthy information from anonymous sources.
| Siqoko says the sentence in question was based on a complaint from SAMWU with the office of the Speaker. Also, speaking on behalf of the Speaker and the mayor, a spokesperson has confirmed the SAMWU complaint; this was also endorsed by BCMM spokesman Keith Ngesi. “But the investigation, which is currently underway, will reveal whether this is true or not.”
The editor also points me to further developments, after the story was published. He says that in a report by the mayor, he referred to the message left on Peter’s mailbox, using “…the exact words quoted in our article. According to the mayor the conduct of the city manager constituted a serious misconduct and warranted further investigation.” Siqoko concludes that, if the mayor saw this as serious misconduct, the Daily Dispatch would have failed in its duty to be the eyes and ears of the community, had it not reported the matter. He says since the submission of the mayor’s report to council, Fani has been put on precautionary suspension to allow council to continue investigating, amongst others, the issue of Peter’s employment. |
My considerations
The editor-in-chief says the statement in question – that Fani could be charged with fraud after he appeared to have altered job requirements to favour Peter – was based on a complaint from SAMWU.
However, SAMWU did not say anything about the above in its complaint (dated 1 July 2015) – the union complained (in the covering letter) that the voicemail message was “viewed as harassment, intimidation and violation of human rights, because its contents is full of threats”. In the complaint itself, SAMWU merely stated that it viewed the content of the voicemail message as “harassment, because its contents is [full] of threats”.
This refers to the second sentence of the voicemail, dated 25 June 2015: “[We] change (sic) the recommends (sic) for you. So if you think that you (are) going to be big to other people, we’ll have a problem.” (Emphasis added.)
Surely, the SAMWU complaint cannot be used to justify the statement that Fani may have altered job requirements – only that he may have threatened Peter to stay loyal to him.
The question, therefore, is whether the reportage could be deemed as fair, when considered separately from SAMWU’s complaint.
I note that Wulff denies any alteration to suit Peter. His explanation sounds credible – yet there is also the following rather ominous sentence, recorded in the voicemail: “When you wanted to be appointed I send (sic) Thabo and you didn’t meet the requirements and we changed the recommends (sic) for you.”
Neither I nor the newspaper has the full context to this sentence, and the matter is currently under investigation.
However, it is neither my or the newspaper’s task to establish the veracity or credibility of Fani’s statement (as the investigation is not done by us). My only concern is whether the newspaper was justified in its reportage, considering the information that was at its disposal at the time of publication.
Given the lack of necessary context, I do believe that the sentence in question was formulated carefully enough – it did not say that Fani had implicated himself in fraud, but that it appeared that he did so. Given the content of the voicemail, and the cautious way in which this statement was phrased, I have to conclude that Daily Dispatch was justified in its reportage at the time of publication.
This is not to say that I am finding that Fani did alter the job requirements to suit Peter – all I am saying is that the reportage on this issue was justified.
Not meeting advertised minimum requirements
According to the article, “Well-placed sources within the metro this week claimed [Peter] only possessed a national diploma in cost and management accounting, but when the post was advertised, candidates required an NQF tevel 7 qualification, equivalent to a bacjolor’s degree. The person should also have seven years of senior and middle management level experience, two of which must be at senior management level.”
Wulff re-states that the requirements for the post were not as reported by the Daily Dispatch, but were set out in the advertisment dated 16 October 2013. He says, not only did Peter meet the requirements, but he exceeded them in that he possessed, inter alia, a National Diploma in Cost and Management Accounting (NQF level 6) and a Municipal Certificate in Municipal Finance Management (NQF level 6).
In addition to possessing all the requirements as set out in the Gazette, he had also passed a further nine unit standards as confirmed by the Local Government SETA (on 26 May 2014). When the post was advertised Peter had more than eight years of relevant experience, of which four years and eight months were at middle management level.
He says the Daily Dispatch would possibly not wish to contest this information as it was “…largely confirmed by information in possession of the newspaper”.
| Siqoko says it is unfortunate that Wulff is sharing all this information only now. When the newspaper approached the BCMM for information, its spokesman said that he was constrained by the “processes and procedures that govern our operations…”
The editor: “I do not think what Mr. Wulff is doing is fair. The municipality had an opportunity to sit down with our reporter, explain to him, clarify and clear the confusion by making available to him the information that they are now using to dispute and discredit our report” – Fuzile sent about three e-mails to BCMM spokesman Ngesi, asking for clarity. In one of the e-mails the reporter asked him to answer the specific questions, instead of responding broadly on how Peter’s recruitment had been handled by the BCMM. |
My considerations
The first advertisement for the post, published on 12 September 2011, stipulated that the following was needed:
· An NQF Level 7 qualification in a field relevant to the senior management position;
· Seven years of experience at senior and middle management level, of which two years had to be on senior management level; and
· Knowledge, experience and understanding of all local government legislation.
The second, published on 16 October 2013, required inter alia the following:
· A degree – B.Com. with accounting;
· Or at least an NQF level 5 qualification in relevant fields (NQF level 6 was preferable);
· Or a National Diploma in Public Management and Administration; and
· A minimum of five years relevant experience, of which two years had to be at middle management level.
I asked the newspaper about the advertisement featured in the story. Clearly, it used the (out-dated) advertisement published on 12 September 2011.
The statement in question was therefore incorrect and unfair – even though the story did not state it as fact, but quoted sources in this regard. A publication is duty-bound to verify a statement that is potentially harmful to a subject – which Daily Dispatch did not do. The impression left by the story is that this allegation had legs to stand on, and was therefore true, while it was not.
Altering panel’s recommendations
There is nothing in the story presented to me to indicate that the appointments panel’s recommendations may have been altered. I therefore cannot adjudicate on this part of the complaint.
Overlooked for post
The story reported, “Employees at the revenue service department…told the Dispatch that two senior workers at BCM more qualified that Peter had been overlooked for the job.”
Wulff complains that this statement was speculative and did not even provide specifics of who had been overlooked. He says the BCMM followed an inclusive selection process whereby a large selection of candidates, both internal and external, was considered. The interview panel comprised of a variety of councilors and staff members, who unanimously recommended Peter for appointment to the post. He adds that no disputes were lodged by any applicant, with either the CCMA of the SA Government Bargaining Council, claiming unfair labour practice regarding Peter’s appointment.
My considerations
It is not true that the story did not “provide specifics” about employees who had been overlooked, as the article cited two such persons (naming one of them and including her qualifications).
SAMWU shop stewards
The article stated, “How do you explain the appointment of the Samwu shop stewards to senior positions while they don’t qualify…?”
Wulff advises that he intends lodging a separate complaint about this matter with my office.
Siqoko does not reply to this part of the complaint.
My considerations
I cannot come to a finding at this stage, as I am awaiting Wulff’s specific complaint on this issue.
Senior officials linked to allegations of fraud
The journalist reported, “This is the second audio recording to emerge in the province linking senior government officials to allegations of serious fraudulent activities. Two weeks ago two senior Bisho officials were captured on tape discussing alleged tender manipulation.”
Wulff complains that this allegation could be understood by readers to imply that any person involved in Peter’s appointment was somehow involved or implicated in allegations of seriously fraudulent activities. “It has been shown that a range of senior Councillors and staff were involved in this appointment and it is submitted that this unfounded and unsubstantiated allegation or inference impugns the dignity, reputation and professionalism of such person.”
My considerations
The story did not link the other “senior government officials” with Wulff – it merely provided more context to the story.
In general
Wulff states, “The article provides incorrect or misleading information in a negative context, which is believed to be selectively published with an apparent intention to mislead readers as to the true state of affairs and to discredit the BCMM… This view derives from the clear discrepancies between the article and the true state of affairs…”
He says he is particularly concerned that the article provided speculative and unsubstantiated information, which discredited the officials without reason – creating misleading, false or improper perceptions and thereby impugning the professional and moral competence of the officials and the institution. This included an analysis of the legislative prescripts applying to the same officials “…and indeed, without even reference to information which is in possession of the Daily Dispatch themselves”. He alleges this is part of a trend over the years.
Wulff submits that the newspaper has breached the Code in terms of its Preamble, gathering and reporting of news, independence and conflict of interest, privacy, the protection of personal information, dignity and reputation, comment, and confidential and anonymous sources.
| Siqoko denies that the newspaper intended to mislead its readers or to discredit the BCMM. “To complain that we did not make reference to information in our possession is not true either. None of the information the Mr. Wulff has made available to the Press Ombudsman was given to us at the time of writing the said article. This was despite repeated requests for such information to be made available to us.”
The editor says that Fuzile contacted most people mentioned in the story prior to publication. However, he could not get hold of Peter. “We decided to go ahead as he had earlier indicated to us he would not be responding to any questions from us.” He adds that Ngesi (Fani referred the newspaper’s questions to Ngesi) made the statements attributed to the municipality in the story; a spokesperson confirmed that the recording was investigated by the office of the Speaker. “Our article fairly reflected their statements – which they made on behalf of both the administratice and political arms of the council… What we had was the City Manager being accused, in an official complaint, of tampering with the recruitment precess by either changing (the) minimun requirements for a senior management position or the recommendations of an interview panel.” Siqoko says the article made it clear that the newspaper was not sure which requirements or recommendations were changed. “But in the recording, which is the bases of the complaint, the Municipal Manager seems to implicate himself in what appears to be job fixing… In the recording…the city manager seems to admit to wrongdoing – though (it is) not clear what exactly did he do.” In summary, the editor says he believes the newspaper acted reasonably and without negligence; not breaching the Press Code in any way. The story was in the public interest, and it was reasonably true. The comments of every source mentioned in the story were sought and where the newspaper had been unable to get such comment, the article said so. |
My considerations
Based on my finding as a whole, there is not enough evidence – apart from the wrong advertisement used by Daily Dispatch and the false deductions following from that – for me to reach, categorically, the same conclusion as Wulff did.
Finding
Forging, altering job requirements
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Not meeting advertised minimum requirements
The publishing of views from sources that Peter did not meet the advertised minimum requirements for the job is in breach of the following sections of the Press Code:
· 2.1: “The press shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”; and
· 2.4: “Where there is reason to doubt the accuracy of a report and it is practicable to verify the accuracy thereof, it shall be verified. Where it has not been practicable to verify the accuracy of a report, this shall be stated in such report.”
The statement in question was therefore incorrect and unfair.
Altering panel’s recommendations
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Overlooked for post
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
SAMWU shop stewards
There is no finding on this issue, as I am awaiting Wulff’s specific complaint on this issue.
Senior officials linked to allegations of fraud
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
In general
The complainant succeeds with only one of the six parts of the complaint as there is not enough evidence (apart from the wrong advertisement used by Daily Dispatch and the false deductions following from that) to reach, categorically, the same conclusion as Wulff did. This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of our Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The breach of the Press Code as indicated above is a Tier 2 offence.
Sanction
Daily Dispatch is directed to apologise for incorrectly and unfairly, and without verification, quoting sources who said that minimum standards were altered to suit Peter. The newspaper is free to mention those parts of the complaint that were dismissed.
The text, which should be approved by me, should end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”.
The apology should appear on the same page as the story in its published version, as well as on the newspaper’s website.
The headline should reflect the content of the text. A heading such as Matter of Fact, or something similar, is not acceptable.
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