Appeal Decision: Prophet Samuel Radebe vs. The Star

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Commission chair death threats: man in dock (published on 30 June 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 was about a court case regarding a man, Koabeng Qhobeka, who had allegedly made death threats against Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL) head Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva. Qhobeka was reportedly a congregant of “controversial pastor, Samuel Radebe” – who had been charged for refusing to appear before a police commission of investigation.

Radebe complained that the story:

• unfairly referred to him as “controversial”;
• falsely stated that he had forced members of his congregation to gather earth from the graves of their relatives and to worship while carrying spears; and
• unnecessarily tarnished his dignity and reputation.

The Ombud dismissed the complaint, mainly because:

• Radebe should make peace with the fact that he was indeed a controversial figure, given his position in the church and his refusal to co-operate with the police; and
• the newspaper merely reported that statements were made in the media regarding the gathering of earth from graves and the carrying of spears.

Radebe then applied for leave to appeal.

Judge Ngoepe said he agreed with the Ombud’s ruling and therefore dismissed the application.

THE RULING ITSELF

PROPHET SAMUEL RADEBE                                                                APPLICANT

versus

[1]     Prophet Samuel Radebe (“applicant”) lodged a complaint against The Star (“respondent”) in respect of an article which appeared in the respondent on 30 June 2016, with the headline: “Commission chair death threats: man in dock.” The person referred to in the headline was not applicant at all, but apparently a member of his church.  The article did not only talk about the man, but also about the applicant.  It said two things about him, which formed the core of his complaint. Firstly, that the applicant was a controversial person and, secondly, that media “reports claim that Radebe had forced his congregation to gather earth from their relatives’ graves and worship carrying spears.”  His complaint to the Office of the Press Ombud was that both reports statements were false, and therefore tarnished his reputation.

[2]     In its defence, the respondent said that applicant was indeed a controversial person.  Respondent referred to the fact that he had failed to appear before an official commission of inquiry.   Regarding the second complaint, the respondent argued that it merely reported what the other media had reported, and stated so.

[3]     The Ombud dismissed the complaint in its entirety.  He agreed with the respondent that the applicant was indeed a controversial person.  He also held that the respondent had stated that the allegation that the applicant had given certain instructions to his congregants came from other media reports.

[4]     I have considered submissions by both parties on the application.  I can only grant leave to appeal if I find that there are reasonable prospects that the Appeals Panel may find that the Ombud was wrong.  In my view, the Ombud was right.  It really cannot be said that the applicant is not controversial. The mere failure to appear before an official commission of inquiry creates some controversy, at least until exculpatory reasons are given.  As regard the second complaint, it is clear from the quotation in paragraph 1 above that the respondent did in fact mention that the alleged bizarre instructions to his congregants came from other media.  Perhaps the applicant should have lodged his complaint against those media.

[5]     For the reasons given above, the application is dismissed for lack of any prospects of success before the Appeals Panel of the Press Council.

Dated this 23^rd day of August 2016

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel