Philani Shange vs. Isolezwe

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Izidakamizwa ziqeda ikusasa (Drugs are harmful to the future). It was published on 4 August 2016.

This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

 

The article was about an Orlando Pirates soccer player who had been suspected of having used drugs. The reporter mentioned other players who went the same route – including Philani Shange. The story recalled that Shange had been given a two-year ban from the sport after having used dagga. “Shange apologized for his actions. He parted ways with Arrows and moved to AmaZulu where things did not work out for him; after that he went to Chippa United where there is uncertainty regarding his future with the club,” it was reported.

Shange complained that the article:

• falsely stated that:
  • he had been suspended for two years (while it had been three months);
  • his future with Chippa United was uncertain; and
• misleadingly insinuated that he had been dismissed from former teams due to a drug problem.

He added that drugs were no longer an issue for him and argued that the story was out of context and that it had defamed him.

Retief dismissed the complaint, mainly because:

• the purpose of the article was not to report on what had happened to soccer players who had problems with drugs – the purpose was rather to state that the soccer player in question was not the only one who had walked this road;
• Shange’s suspension was on condition that he did not use dagga again during the two-year period. This explained why he was both suspended and continued playing the game; and
• the story did not say that Shange had been dismissed from former teams due to a drug problem – it merely stated that he had left some soccer clubs.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Philani Shange and those Damien Terblanche, on behalf of the Isolezwe newspaper.

Shange is complaining about a story in Isolezwe of 4 August 2016, headlined Izidakamizwa ziqeda ikusasa (Drugs are harmful to the future).

Complaint

Shange complains the article:

·         falsely stated that:

o   he had been suspended for two years (while it had been three months);

o   his future with Chippa United was uncertain; and

·         misleadingly insinuated that he had been dismissed from former teams due to a drug problem (he failed a drug test in 2010, had a disciplinary hearing with PSL, was fined – and has been rehabilitated – and had not used dagga since.

As drugs were no longer an issue for him, he says the story was out of context and argues that it defamed him.

The text

The article, written by Mthokozisi Mncuseni, was about an Orlando Pirates player who had been suspected of having used drugs. The reporter then mentioned other players who went the same route – including Shange.

The story recalled that Shange had been given a two-year ban from the sport after using dagga. “Shange apologized for his actions. He parted ways with Arrows and moved to AmaZulu where things did not work out for him; after that he went to Chippa United where there is uncertainty regarding his future with the club.”

The arguments

Shange explains that he was dismissed from Lamontville Golden Arrows FC, but left willingly when the club was relegated. He says he then moved to Amazulu FC, which was also relegated – and again he left willingly.

In June 2016, his contract with Chippa United FC was terminated by the club. He says Isolezwe published this fact – yet in the article in dispute it claimed that his future with that club was unclear.

Terblanche replies that the story (a feature) was not about Shange – rather, he was used as a reference like five other former players. The feature came about after Orlando Pirates had released a statement about a player who had tested positive for cocaine. He explains that the newspaper then decided to look back to previous cases where professional soccer players were found guilty of using drugs and other illegal substances.

He also submits that Shange was found guilty of using dagga in 2010 (he pleaded guilty and apologized for using that substance) – but, he argues, the story in dispute did not say that he was still using dagga. He adds that Shange was suspended for two years, provided that he was not involved in a similar transgression and attended a drug abuse programme. “This sentence was widely reported in the media, in a number of different publications…”

Terblanche summerises, “Isolezwe…submits that the comments published in the article complained of, [amounted] to fair comment. The article was published based on the Orlando Pirates statement and the ruling by the NDC of SAPA, which was handed down against [Shange]. The comments made were clearly made on truthful facts which were widely reported on in the media. In addition the article differentiated between facts, comment and speculation. In this sense, Isolezwe published the matter in a fair manner which amounted to fair comment based on truthful facts.”

Shange replies that:

·         he does not deny his past;

·         while the article was not about him, an extract from it was;

·         he was fined R12 000 – a fine which was suspended for two years – but he in fact continued to play soccer.

Analysis

The purpose of the article was not to report on what has happened to the soccer players who have had problems with drugs – if that was the case, one might have expected to find what Shange is in fact looking for. The purpose was rather to state that the soccer player in question was not the only one who had walked this road.

The complaint about suspension also does not hold water – Shange’s suspension was on condition that he did not use dagga again during the two-year period. This explains why he was both suspended and continued playing the game.

Also, I do not read in the text that Shange was dismissed from former teams due to a drug problem – it merely stated that he had left some soccer clubs.

On the whole, I find the article to be truthful, accurate and balanced.

The only possible issue may be the statement that his future at Chippa United was uncertain.

I have therefore asked for clarity, and this was Terblanche’s response:

“The termination of Shange’s contract with Chippa was not publicized in the media during July 2016. In fact, I could not find any articles publicizing the termination of Shange’s contract. In light of the above, Isolezwe felt it necessary to speculate on Shange’s contract as it was common knowledge that Shange was injured for a number of months which raised concern with the media and the public as to the possibility of Shange remaining with Chippa United.”

I am accepting this explanation on face value.

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