City of Cape Town vs. Cape Argus

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Priya Reddy, on behalf of the City of Cape Town (of which she is the spokesperson and media manager), and those of Gasant Abarder, editor of the Cape Argus newspaper.

The City of Cape Town is complaining about a headline on the front page of The Cape Argus of 21 June 2016 (Khayelitsha event shut down by city – Development forum says it’s an ‘attack on black culture’).

Complaint

The City complains that the:

·         headline was inaccurate, unfair and dishonest; and

·         claim that the enforcement actions were an “attack on black culture” was preposterous and ridiculous.

The text

The story, written by Zodidi Dano, said that the Khayelitsha Development Forum (KDF) had accused the city council of “attacking black entertainment and culture” in the suburb by shutting down its popular First Sunday initiative. This “initiative” took the form of an open-air lounge on weekends in Khayelitsha, where residents could relax, listen to music and buy some food.

The arguments

Motivating its complaint, the City says it:

·         did not shut down the event, the SAPS did (due to illegal liquor trading) – “This claim was made by SAPS and not the City so to blame the City is dishonest”;

·         only issued some fines for non-compliance with various by-laws, none of which had the impact of shutting down the venue (the fines were mainly issued for failure to obtain business licenses or noise abatement / exemption certificates); and

·         did not act on an independent basis, but operated jointly with the SAPS and the Provincial Liquor Authority.

Reddy adds that, where joint operations with the SAPS are done, the police is the lead agency and enforcement is done based on priorities identified by SAPS.

She also submits that while City officials were at the scene, she in fact asked why people were starting to leave and who shut down the venue. The police then told her it was done by the SAPS because of illegal liquor trading.

Cape Argus responds as follows:

Background

During the morning of June 18, Mayoral Committee Member for Safety and Security, Alderman JP Smith, notified the media via WhatsApp that he would be doing a Law Enforcement Operation with the Liquor & Vice Unit in Khayelitsha from 17:30 that evening. Approximately at 17:30 City of Cape Town authorities closed down the event.

On June 20 Dano sought a response from the City of Cape Town, which confirmed that the premises had been closed down due to liquor sales without the necessary license.

The City also confirmed that the closure was part of its operation, noting that “it was an integrated operation between the City’s Liquor Enforcement Unit, the Provincial Office of the South African Police Service … Liquor Control and the Western Cape Liquor Authority”.

When asked whether the City was working towards any form of remedial assistance for young people to create or improve their businesses, it responded that “The City’s Liquor Enforcement Unit acted in support of the South African Police Service (“SAPS”) (Khayelitsha) to address liquor outlets”.

Abarder notes that the City, in this correspondence, did not differentiate between itself and the SAPS, but instead stated that its actions were in support of the SAPS, and that it also operated with the Western Cape Liquor Authority.

The City’s Liquor Enforcement and Compliance Unit polices premises selling liquor in compliance with the necessary regulations and legislation. This involves inspecting premises for compliance, issuing fines for liquor offenses and closing down unlicensed liquor premises.

Abarder cites the relevant by-law published in the Western Cape Government Gazette which authorizes the City’s Liquor Enforcement and Compliance Unit to close premises in the prevention of the sale of liquor.

Abarder adds that, when Dano gave the City a second opportunity to respond to the closure of the event, the City still did not differentiate between itself and the SAPS in relation to the closure of the event.

After the City asked for a correction, the editor offered it space to run a letter to express its views, without prejudice. This offer was rejected.

The City then asked for the publication of an advertisement which contained an additional response to the article, which was done.

Response to complaint

Based on the above, Abarder argues that the:

·         headline was a reasonable reflection of the contents of the article;

·         City, whether wholly or partly, was indeed responsible for the closure of the event;

·         City assumed responsibility for the closure of the event throughout its correspondence with the newspaper;

·         article was accurate, truthful and fair in that it was based on verified facts and events which had taken place, following responses sought from all the relevant parties, including the City;

·         story was in the public interest; and

·         claims in the report were clearly attributed to the KDF.

Abarder concludes that the City was wholly and/or partly responsible for the closure of the event adding, “The City of Cape Town’s attempt to backpedal out of the closure of the event after the article was published by the [newspaper] is irresponsible and a weak attempt at saving face with the citizens of Cape Town, particularly registered voters.”

Analysis

The central question is whether the Cape Argus was justified to state that the City had closed down the entertainment area.

Having noted all of the above-cited arguments, I especially need to point out the following considerations:

A day before publication, and in time to meet the headline, Dano stated as fact in his e-mail to the City that its authorities had closed down the entertainment area.

Janine Willemans, senior media liaison officer, had an opportunity to either deny that the City had closed down the area, or to clarify the matter – which she did not do. In fact, she did not respond to this statement at all.

The reporter also specifically asked if the closing down of the premises was part of a City operation, to which Willemans responded: “Yes, it was an integrated operation between the City’s Liquor Enforcement Unit, the … SAPS and the Western Cape Liquor Authority” – nothing more and nothing less.

Given the fact that the City had an opportunity to clarify this issue, which it did not use, and that it confirmed that it was an “integrated operation” between itself and the SAPS, I cannot blame the newspaper for reporting that the City had closed down the venue.

If this turned out to be wrong, the City only has itself to blame for not adequately clarifying the matter prior to publication. This means that I cannot conclude that the newspaper was in breach of the Code of Ethics and Conduct.

However, if it later transpires that a report is possibly untrue and unfair (even when it was justified at the time of publication), it should be corrected.

Had the City’s advertisement not been published, I would have directed the newspaper to do so, or to publish a correction of its own. To my mind, the advertisement spelled out the City’s position eloquently and sufficiently.

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 Ombud