Appeal Decision: Maharaj Parbathie vs. Weekend Witness

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, No love lost between Bantam and Maharaj – Stir over tea club money; PMB cluster commander and Ipid KZN boss blame each other for missing money (published on 13 February 2016).

This ruling by the Chair of the Appeals Panel Judge Bernard Ngoepe was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

The story said that Parbatie Maharaj, a former Pietermaritzburg cluster commander and currently the head of the KZN Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid), had been accused of using public funds to throw an elaborate farewell party when she had moved to Ipid in 2014. However, Maharaj reportedly pointed a finger at Brigadier Francis Bantham (who was the acting cluster commander), who allegedly intended to use R10 000 for a “grand function to market herself” as Maharaj’s replacement. The journalist called this “clash” a “cat fight”.

Maharaj complained the story had unnecessarily tarnished her reputation by falsely stating that she had had a farewell party; that some missing money had allegedly been used to pay for this “party”; and that the journalist had failed to ask her about the “fight” between herself and to verify the information that she had supplied the reporter with.

The Ombud dismissed the complaint, mainly because the allegations made against Maharaj had been balanced out by various references to what she herself had to say. He also considered that the newspaper had on-the-record evidence that a case had indeed been opened against Maharaj.

Maharaj then applied for leave to appeal.

Judge Ngoepe said that, when allegations of disappearance of funds were made against a person, and the person not only refuted the allegations but attached audited reports, he doubted whether a newspaper could contend itself by merely recording the denial and not to mention the exculpatory audit reports; at least substantially. He also asked it there really was some missing money.

Maharaj was granted leave to appeal as the article could have been unfair to her and could have tarnished her reputation.

THE RULING ITSELF

IN THE MATTER OF:

MAHARAJ PARBATHIE                                                                                               APPELLANT

VS

WEEKEND WITNESS                                                                                                   RESPONDENT

            MATTER NO: 1638/03/2016

[1]     Major-General Parbathie Maharaj (“applicant”) lodged a complaint against Weekend Witness (“respondent”) with the office of the Ombud in connection with a story published by the respondent on 13 February 2016.  The headline in capital letters read: “NO LOVE LOST BETWEEN BANTHAM AND MAHARAJ”. The subhead read “Stir over tea club money – PBM cluster commander and IPID KZN boss blame each other for missing money.” Applicant is the former Pietermaritzburg Cluster Commander, having moved to the KwaZulu-Natal Independent Police Investigative Directorate as head.  Her place at the cluster commander has since been taken by Brigadier Francis Bantham (“Bantham”).

[2]     While applicant was still the cluster commander, she was in charge of certain projects, one of which was known as the Project STEP; she was also in charge of the monies of the police tea club; a role later taken over by Bantham.  The story reported that there were allegations, some by Bantham, against respondent that some monies of the tea club and of Project STEP were missing or could not be accounted for.  The apploicant was being implicated, and some investigations were reported as being pending against her.  It was also alleged that she used the club’s funds to finance her own farewell party when she left for the IPID.

[3]     The applicant’s complaints were summed up by the Press Ombud in his Ruling of 22 April 2016; namely, that the story falsely stated that:

“?      she had received a farewell party; and

?    Missing money had allegedly been used for this ‘party’.”

Furthermore, that the journalist failed to

“?      ask her about the ‘fight’ between herself and cluster commander Brigadier Francis Bantham … and

?    verify the information she had supplied to the report ….” In this respect, she says she submitted several documents, which were ignored, to substantiate her response.

In conclusion she says that “the reportage has unnecessarily tarnished her reputation”.

[4]     In her response to the journalist, the applicant says she denied that a farewell party was ever held for her; instead, it was Bantham who used some money to hold a function to mark her taking over.  She obviously denied using the club’s money and said that all the funds of the club were accounted for, as also those of the Project STEP.  In fact, the books in respect of both funds were regularly audited.  She complained that the documents she submitted to the respondent, which served to bolster her version, were not considered.

[5]     In its defence, the applicant argued that the story did not say that respondent had used funds for her farewell party; but that there were such allegations; furthermore, that the police had confirmed that a case was opened against her. Respondent argues that the story was balanced, and that respondent’s version was well-represented.

[6]     In his Ruling, the Ombud said that applicant’s denials and version were reflected in the story, and dismissed the complaint.  I have reservations about whether respondent’s complaint was, in the first place, correctly understood.  Her complaint is not that her version was not reflected, nor does she dispute the fact that a case against her was reported to the Hawks.  Her complaint, which is really questioning the fairness of the report, related to the manner in which the documents she submitted were dealt with, and that they were not reflected in the report.  She went to great length to submit a number of very relevant and material documents to support her version.

[7]     It may be argued that fair reporting required at the very minimum some reference to at least some of the documents.  The report states for example that one colonel in charge of finances could not find any record of the project which respondent had headed.  When allegations of disappearance of funds are made against a person, and the person not only refutes the allegations but attaches audited reports, I doubt whether a newspaper can contend itself by merely recording the denial and not to mention the exculpatory audit reports; at least substantially. As said earlier, applicant went to great lengths to submit a number of documents which are materially relevant.  I have gone through the story as reported, but fail to see any reference to these documents; if there is any, it is not in a meaningful way. I agree with respondent that it was not for it to pronounce on the innocence or otherwise of the applicant; but what did respondent do or say in its story about those documents to ensure fair reporting? One other point: respondent was aware that applicant had initiated criminal investigations against some of the people who levelled accusations against applicant. The subheading speaks of “missing” money; was there any money actually missing? I say no more, given the fact that I am inclined to grant leave to appeal.

[8]     For the reasons given above, I am of the view that the applicant has reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel that the report was not fair and/ or that it tarnished her reputation.  Accordingly, the following order is made:

(a)     Major-General Parbathie Maharaj is hereby granted leave to appeal to the Appeals Panel against the Ruling of the Press Ombud, dated 22 April 2016.

(b)     The appeal is about whether or not articles 1.1, 1.2 and 1.7 of the Press Code were violated by the respondent.

Dated this 22^nd day of June 2016

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel