Appeal Decision: News 24 vs SA Security Solutions & Technology (PTY)LTD

NEWS24                                                                                                        APPLICANT

AND

[1]     South African Security Solutions & Technology (Pty) Ltd and its related companies (“the applicants”) complained to the Office of the Press Ombud about two articles published by News 24 (“respondent”) online media platforms on 20 May 2016 (first article) and 26 May 2016 (second article).  The first article was headlined “Gordhan orders Masutha to cancel R378 IT tender”.  The second one was headlined “Battleground 2: Gordhan’s R500 billion tender war.”  The gist of both articles was that the Minister of Finance, Mr Gordhan, had questioned the regularity of some tenders awarded by inter alia by the Department of Justice and Correctional Services to the applicant and its sister companies, or some companies between which there was some sub-contracting agreements in relation to the tenders in question.

[2]     The applicant raised a number of complaints, a number of which were dismissed by the Press Ombud.  I will not go into them because this application is in respect of only two which were upheld by the Ombud, in consequence of which he imposed sanction on the applicant.

[3]     In paragraph 2 of its application for leave to appeal, the applicant identifies the Ombud’s findings in respect of which leave is sought as follows:

“2.     News 24 seeks leave to appeal against the following findings (“the main findings”) by the press ombudsman:

2.1    That a news story entitled Gordhan orders Mashuta to cancel R378m IT tender was in breach of section 10.1 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct (“the Code”), in that News 24 wrongly stated that Gordhan had ‘ordered’ Mashuta to cancel a contract.

2.2    That a column entitled Gordhan’s R500 billion tender war was in breach of section 7.2.4 of the Code in that it should have mentioned that National Treasurery had in fact denied that Gordhan’s letter to Mashuta constituted an order.”

Applicant says it seeks leave to appeal “only in respect of the main findings listed in paragraph 2 above.”  Accordingly, I restrict myself to these two findings by the Ombud.

[4]     I do not find any fault with the Ombud’s reasons and finding that applicant “wrongly stated that Gordhan had ‘ordered’ Masutha to cancel a contract.”  I have noted what the applicant says in relation to what was argued or said in court or in the papers.  I do not think that would detract from what an average reader would have understood, namely, that Gordhan ordered Masutha; this is a far cry from “advising”, which was in fact what Gordhan’s letter said.  The word “order” leaves no room for discretion, as opposed to an “advice”. Even if one were to accept that the Minister Gordhan “ordered” Minister Masutha, at best for the applicant the order would not have been to cancel, but for the latter to heed the facts and to consider the advice; it cannot have an order to cancel.

[5]     Regarding the R500 billion “war” finding, I again find no fault with the Ombud’s finding. It was incumbent on the applicant to mention that National Treasury had denied that Gordhan’s letter to Masutha amounted to an order.  No elaboration is needed.

[6]     In light of what is said above, I see no reasonable prospects of success for the applicant before the Appeals Panel; that being the case, the application is dismissed.

Dated this 14^th day of November 2016

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel