Deshi Ngxanga vs. Volksblad

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, headlined Betaal, hoor hoë wat eis los – Regskoste is vermors (published on 18 August 2016).

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

 

The story said that Deshi Ngxanga, municipal manager of the Dawid Kruiper municipality in Upington, had received a claim letter for wasted legal costs after he did not follow up on his defamation case concerning allegations regarding his irregular appointment. Kenneth Khumalo, chairman of the Legacy Network Trust (a human rights organisation), reportedly sued Ngxanga for approximately R6 400 because of this.

Ngxanga complained the story inaccurately stated, without verification, that:

• he had received a claim letter for wasted legal cost from Khumalo;
• his lawyers had asked two magistrates to recuse themselves – while neither he nor his lawyer had ever appeared in court regarding a case involving Khumalo;
• he had instructed his subordinates to justify his appointment on radio and that he had approved the expenditure incurred;
• he had claimed that he possessed a certificate in municipal finance; and
• Patrick Williams, the municipal spokesman, was not available to respond to allegations – while the newspaper had never contacted Williams.

He concluded that the article was fabricated to further entrench the view that he did not qualify for his position as municipal manager and that the reportage had unnecessarily damaged his dignity and reputation.

Retief said that, from a relevant document obtained from the newspaper, it was clear that the statements in question were substantiated. He added that, based on a multitude of documentary evidence, the reporter did try to contact Williams.

The complaint was dismissed.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Deshi Ngxanga, municipal manager of the Dawid Kruiper municipality in Upington, and those of Charné Kemp, journalist at Volksblad newspaper.

Ngxanga is complaining about a story in Volksblad of 18 August 2016, headlined Betaal, hoor hoë wat eis los – Regskoste is vermors.

Complaint

Ngxanga complains the story inaccurately stated, without verification, that:

·         he had received a claim letter for wasted legal cost from Mr Kenneth Khumalo;

·         his lawyers had asked two magistrates to recuse themselves – while neither he nor his lawyer ever appeared in court regarding a case involving Khumalo;

·         he had instructed his subordinates to justify his appointment on radio and that he had approved the expenditure incurred;

·         he had claimed that he possessed a certificate in municipal finance; and

·         Patrick Williams, the municipal spokesman, was not available to respond to allegations – he says the newspaper never contacted Williams. (He adds that Volksblad also had his contact details, but it made no effort to contact him.)

He adds that the article was fabricated (by Khumalo and Volksblad) to further entrench the view that he did not qualify for his position as municipal manager – he says the Auditor General’s report of 2013/14 stated that municipal officials had until September 2015 to complete their minimum competency qualifications.

Ngxanga concludes that the reportage has unnecessarily damaged his dignity (and reputation).

The text

The story, written by Charné Kemp, said that Ngxanga had received a claim letter for wasted legal costs after he did not follow up on his defamation case concerning allegations regarding his irregular appointment as municipal manager.

Mr Kenneth Khumalo, chairman of the Legacy Network Trust (a human rights organisation), reportedly sued Ngxanga for approximately R6 400 as a result of this.

Volksblad’s response

In general, Kemp says she has been working since May this year on several articles dealing with allegations regarding the administration of the Khara Hais municipality over the past three years. She says she spoke to several sources whose complaints vary from the allegedly illegal appointment of Ngxanga to many other issues.

Regarding the allegedly illegal appointment, the journalist says that:

·         AfriForum issued press releases on the matter, pending legal action;

·         several articles were published in local newspapers; and

·         the matter was discussed in a paid-for radio programme on Radio Riverside; it was also debated between the EFF and the ANC on an RSG radio programme prior to the municipal elections of August 2016.

Kemp says she has repeatedly tried to contact Patrick Williams, the municipal spokesperson – “[the] only person I am supposed to deal with” – but he never replied to her enquiries despite the fact that she had given him ample time to respond. She says there was one exception, when Williams communicated with her after a story had been published.

In particular, the reporter inter alia attests that:

·         she e-mailed her article to Williams (and two others) on August 15 for his response – which was not forthcoming;

·         officials of the department and the municipality initiated the Radio Riverside interview in December 2013 – and Ngxanga was the official who took responsibility for the municipal expenditure. According to the Municipal Structures Act he is accountable for all money spent by the municipality;

·         her questions were mostly not about Ngxanga or his qualifications – they were rather about his appointment (for which he was not responsible); and

·         the only issue regarding qualifications was that he allegedly did not have all the modules for his CMPD certificate at the time of his appointment – she says she had to report on the certificate because the head of ministry in the department said in a radio interview (to defend the appointment) that Ngxanga did have the certificate at the time he applied and was appointed. In the relevant Auditor General’s report (six months after Ngxanga’s appointment) it was found that he did not have the required modules on the day he was appointed (in December 2013) or in June 2014 when the report was published.

Analysis

As Kemp did not address some of the main issues in her response to the complaint, I have asked her whether she has proof that:

·         Ngxanga received a claim letter for wasted legal costs from Khumalo; and

·         his lawyers had asked two magistrates to recuse themselves (he says neither he nor his lawyer has ever appeared in court regarding a case involving Khumalo).

She responded as follows (slightly edited):

·         Khumalo wrote a letter to Ngxanga regarding wasted legal fees. The former went to the municipality insisting on giving the letter to Ngxanga himself. However, he was not there and a certain Mr Basilton promised to deliver it to him. Ngxanga did  not acknowledge receipt of Khumalo’s letter, nor did he respond to it; and

·         Khumalo mentioned two magistrates recusing themselves in this letter. In fact, the letter claims that one magistrate recused himself. Khumalo seemingly misunderstood this, as is evident from his letter to Ngxanga, which was used in the article.

From the document attached by Kemp, dated 7 July 2016, the statements in question were clearly substantiated.

As Ngxanga was the official responsible for municipal expenditure, the reportage of the radio interview meant the relevant expenditure was reasonable (as argued by Kemp).

I accept Kemp’s argument that she had to report on the certificate in municipal finance because the head of ministry in the department said in a radio interview (to defend the appointment) that Ngxanga did have the certificate at the time he applied.

Not for a moment do I buy the complaint that Kemp did not try to contact Williams, based on a multitude of documentary evidence she provided.

I therefore also cannot accept that the article was fabricated to further entrench the view that Ngxanga did not qualify for his position as municipal manager, and therefore also not that the reportage has unnecessarily damaged his dignity (and reputation).

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