Appeal Hearing Decision: Huisgenoot vs Mr Joggie Scholtz
On November 13, 2015, the Appeals Panel of the Press Council of South Africa heard an appeal by Huisgenoot against a ruling by Press Ombudsman Johan Retief regarding a complaint by Mr Joggie Scholtz about an article that appeared in Huisgenoot on March 5, 2015, entitled “Ek’s nie klaar met die skool”.
Acting chair of the appeals panel Neville Woudberg presided over the hearing held in Cape Town. He was assisted by adjudicators Peter Mann (public) and Fanie Groenwald (press).
Present, too, were Nadia Honiball (Deputy Editor of Huisgenoot), Joanie Bergh (reporter) and attorney Faan Coetzee, representing Huisgenoot.
It was noted the respondent, Mr Joggie Scholtz, declined to attend.
COMPLAINT
Scholtz lodged a complaint against Huisgenoot with the office of the Press Ombudsman in connection with an article published on March 5, 2015. The article was about a conflict between the principal of the Hoërskool Swartland in Malmesbury, Dirk Marais, and the respondent who was the chair of the school’s governing body.
In the story, the principal was reported as complaining about, amongst others, email intimidation and threats by the respondent. Also reported was the fact that the principal had obtained an interim protection order against the respondent in the local magistrate’s court.
Scholtz’s complaint was that Huisgenoot violated the Press Code in that its report was not accurate, truthful and fair or balanced. He later asked that his complaint should be held back until the court proceedings over the protection order had been completed.
Mr Marais withdrew his application for the restraining order before Mr Scholtz had an opportunity to contest it in court. Mr Scholtz then won an order for costs against Mr Marais in June, 2015.
Magistrate Jeffrey Jantjies granted costs against Mr Marais after finding, repeatedly, that Mr Marais had not been honest with the court, that he “deliberately misled” the court and that he had withheld information. He said: “[Marais’s] contention that he was harassed by [Scholtz] and required protection comes unstuck”. .
This and other adverse remarks by the magistrate against the principal and the cost award against him, resulted in the respondent approaching the Press Council again, asking the applicant to publish the court’s findings. The applicant refused and, instead, offered to interview him, or for him to write a letter for publication. The offer was declined.
OMBUDSMAN’S RULING
In his ruling dated August 16, 2015, the Ombudsman held that applicant acted in breach of article 2.6 of the Press Code: “A publication shall make amends for publishing information or comment that is found to be inaccurate by printing, promptly and with appropriate prominence, a retraction, correction or explanation”.
He found that it was fair and just to agree to respondent’s request to report about the judgment, which absolved respondent. He also found that applicant was under an ethical duty to so publish. He ordered applicant to publish the material content of the judgment, and to also state that failure to do so caused damage to the respondent.
LEAVE TO APPEAL
The applicant was granted leave to appeal the ruling. The application was opposed by the respondent.
In its application for leave to appeal, applicant contended that the Ombudsman found against it on the basis of a complaint which did not exist. It says the complaints were based on the alleged breach of articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code. The applicant submitted there was never a complaint based on the alleged violation of article 2.6. The complaint was lodged before the judgment, which came out on June 29, 2015.
The second point raised by the applicant was that it was not a newspaper and did not therefore “report on daily events”. It states that it nevertheless offered Scholtz an opportunity for an interview which was rejected.
Applicant also objected to the sanction imposed and insisted on an interview, which offer remained.
APPEAL GROUNDS
In granting leave to appeal, Appeals Panel Chair Judge B M Ngoepe said: leave is hereby granted to Huisgenoot to appeal against the Ombudsman’s Ruling of 16 August 2015, for the Appeals Panel to consider only the following issues, and to make appropriate orders:
1) Whether Huisgenoot has acted in breach of article 2.6 of the Press Code;
2) What the effect is of Huisgenoot’s offer to interview Mr Joggie Scholtz, and his declining of that offer;
3) In the event of any breach of the Press Code being found, what the appropriate sanction or remedy should be.
APPEAL PROCEEDINGS
In its heads of argument, the applicant submitted that only articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Press Code should be taken into account because it was only these that were mentioned in Scholtz’s complaint. It was contended that as the Ombudsman found there had not been a breach of these two articles, there could not be a breach of 2.6, which in any case had not been used by the respondent as a basis for his complaint.
It was pointed out by the panel that articles 2.1 and 2.2 had not been mentioned in the complaint by Scholtz. But even if this were the case, all aspects of the Code were considered by the Ombudsman and appeals panels.
Also, in specifying the grounds for granting the appeal, the panel was tasked by Judge Ngoepe to consider whether article 2.6 had been breached.
It was pointed out by the panel that 2.6 stood on its own and did not fall away if it was found 2.1 and 2.2 had not been breached.
Article 2.6 refers to a situation where, after publication, information comes to light which shows that purported facts are found to be inaccurate. In such a case, the publication should make amends by “printing, promptly and with appropriate prominence, a retraction, correction or explanation”.
In this case, the ruling by the local magistrate showed respondent had been falsely accused by the principal. Indeed, the principal was instructed to pay all of Scholtz’s costs.
Huisgenoot maintained at the hearing that its offer to interview respondent or to publish a letter by him fulfilled the requirements of 2.6. Its desire was to publish a new “story” based on an interview with Scholtz. In the absence of his cooperation, applicant would not be able to comply.
Applicant acknowledged at the hearing that in the light of subsequent events, it was evident respondent’s dignity and standing in the community had been harmed as a result of the article it published on March 5, 2015.
APPEAL FINDING
1. Applicant was in breach of article 2.6. The panel accepted that at the time of publication, Huisgenoot believed their information to be correct and published in good faith. The Ombudsman was therefore correct in finding there had not been a breach of articles 2.1 and 2.2. However, applicant had failed to comply with 2.6 by not publishing details of the subsequent magistrate’s court finding which vindicated respondent.
2. Respondent’s refusal to accept the offer of an interview or to publish a letter by him did not absolve them of the responsibility in terms of article 2.6 to rectify the matter.
The findings of the Ombudsman are therefore upheld.
SANCTION
It was agreed at the hearing that if applicant failed in its appeal against the finding of the Ombudsman, and if it was ordered to publish details of the ruling by the magistrate in the matter between Marais and Scholtz, the wording would be drawn up by the panel, which would also specify the prominence it should be given.
Accordingly, the panel directs that Huisgenoot publishes the following on one of its first four pages of the news section of the magazine as soon as possible but before the middle of December, 2015.
TO BE PUBLISHED BY HUISGENOOT
Huisgenoot se versuim berokken Joggie Scholtz onnodige skade
’n Appèlpaneel van die Persraad het Huisgenoot beveel om die wesenlike inhoud te publiseer van die uitspraak in die Malmesbury landdroshof in Junie vanjaar waar die hof ’n kostebevel aan Joggie Scholtz teen Dirk Marais, hoof van Hoërskool Swartland, toegestaan het.
Die appèlpaneel het die bevinding gehandhaaf van die persombudsman, Johan Retief, in Augustus vanjaar, dat Huisgenoot se versuim om dit te doen Scholtz onnodige skade berokken het.
Huisgenoot het teen Retief se bevinding geappelleer. Die appèlpaneel het egter op November 13, 2015, beslis dat Huisgenoot in gebreke van artikel 2.6 van die perskode was wat lui: “’n Publikasie moet vergoed vir die plaas van inligting of kommentaar wat bevind word onakkuraat te wees, deur onmiddellik en met gepaste prominensie, ’n herroeping, regstelling of verduideliking te publiseer.”
Op 5 Maart vanjaar het Huisgenoot ’n artikel geplaas onder die opskrif Ek’s nie klaar met skool – Sy vete met die beheerliggaamvoorsitter was voorbladnuus, maar die Swartland-hoof glo dit sal weer beter gaan.
In die artikel vertel Marais hoe hy ’n tussentydse beskermingsbevel teen Scholtz, toe die voorsitter van die skool se beheerliggaam, gekry het. Scholtz is ook die bestuurder van die Swartlandse munisipaliteit.
Marais het beweer dat Scholtz hom “gedreig” en “geviktimiseer” het, as gevolg waarvan hy “liggaamlik en geestelik ’n groot knou weg” gehad het. Volgens hom het hy so erg gely dat hy dit oorweeg het om te bedank.
Die artikel is grootliks op ’n onderhoud met Marais gebaseer. Huisgenoot het berig dat Scholtz om kommentaar genader is maar dat sy prokureur gesê het dat die saak sub judice was en hy daarom nie in daardie stadium kommentaar wou lewer nie.
Scholtz het ’n klag teen Huisgenoot by die Persraad ingedien maar gevra dat dit teruggehou moet word totdat die hofgeding oor die beskermingsbevel afgehandel is.
Marais het sy aansoek om ’n beskermingsbevel teruggetrek voordat Scholtz dit in die hof kon teenstaan. Scholtz het toe in Junie ’n kostebevel teen Marais verkry.
Landdros Jeffrey Jantjies het in sy uitspraak gesê dat Marais by meer as een geleentheid nie eerlik met die hof was nie, dat hy die hof “doelbewus mislei” het en dat hy sekere inligting weerhou het. Hy het gesê: “[Marais’s] contention that he was harassed by [Scholtz], and required protection, becomes unstuck.”
Ná die landdros se uitspraak het Scholtz sy klagte met die Persraad opgeneem. Hy het daarop aangedring dat Huisgenoot die hof se bevinding moes plaas om die “leuens” oor hom reg te stel.
Huisgenoot het aangebied om ’n onderhoud met Scholtz te publiseer of dat hy ’n brief vir publikasie skryf. Scholtz het dit van die hand gewys.
Die persombudsman, Retief, het beslis dat al wou Scholtz nie ’n onderhoud toestaan of ’n brief skryf nie dit “bloot billik en regververdig” is om aan Scholtz se versoek te voldoen. Dit was ook vir hom onduidelik waarom Huisgenoot nie uit sy eie oor die hofuitspraak berig het nie. “Ná die skadelike aantygings van Marais teen Scholtz was die tydskrif immers onder ’n etiese verpligting om dit te doen.”
Die appèlpaneel het bevind dat Huisgenoot artikel 2.6 van die perskode verbreek het deur nie onmiddellik en met gepaste prominensie, ’n herroeping, regstelling of verduideliking te publiseer nie toe dit duidelik geword het dat die aanvanklike artikel onakkuraat was.
Die paneel het Huisgenoot se betoog dat hulle hul artikel slegs sou kon regstel indien Scholtz ’n onderhoud toestaan of ’n brief skryf, as onredelik verwerp.
Neville Woudberg was voorsitter van die appelpaneel en is bygestaan deur Fanie Groenewald (persverteenwoordiger) and Peter Mann (openbare verteenwoordiger).
Besoek www.presscouncil.org.za vir die volledige bevinding.
Neville Woudberg
Acting Chair of Appeals
Assisted by adjudicators
Peter Mann (public)
Fanie Groenewald (press).
November 17, 2015
