Appeal Decision: Martins Antonio vs Sunday Times

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Protector tears apart R6 million ‘forensic probe’ (published on 20 November 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 crux of the article was that a Member of the Executive Council in Limpopo had caused a tender for forensic investigation to be awarded to a company which had no skills to do that kind of work. The sole director at the time was Martins Antonio’s wife who was a police clerk.  The company (“MPA”) was described as a debt collection company. The article followed a negative report from the office of the Public Protector.

Antonio, director of MPA Investigations, was unhappy that his company was described as a debt collection company.  He argued that the company did a range of things, including forensic investigations, security, etc.

The Ombud dismissed the complaint, mainly because all the information in dispute was based on a report by the Public Protector. He added the story stated that the report was provisional, and that the newspaper was justified to report on the matter because it was in the public interest. “Sunday Times was merely the messenger, and it has not done anything wrong in this regard,” he concluded.

Antonio then applied for leave to appeal.

Judge Ngoepe agreed with the Ombud’s ruling and added:

• While MPA did other jobs, it certainly also listed debt collection as one of its activities;
• Antonio mentioned that he was out in Kruger National Park when he was invited to take the job for which MPA was pad ± R6m by the MEC; he also admitted that he had not submitted any documents to tender for it;
• The matter was of huge public interest; and
• Two days before the contract was awarded, the applicant underwent a five-day crash course in forensic investigation.

THE RULING ITSELF

MARTINS ANTONIO                                                                                   APPLICANT

AND

[1]     Mr Martins Antonio (“applicant”) lodged a complaint with the office of the Press Ombud against the Sunday Times (“respondent”).  The complaint was based on an article which appeared in the respondent’s edition of 20 November 2016, with the headline: “The Protector tears apart R6m ‘forensic probe’”.  The crux of the article was that a Member of the Executive Council in Limpopo had caused a tender for forensic investigation to be awarded to a company which had no skills to do that kind of work. The sole director at the time was applicant’s wife who was a police clerk.  The company (“MPA”) was described as a debt collection company.

[2]     The applicant was unhappy that the company was described as a debt collection company.  He argued that the company did a range of things, including forensic investigations, security etc.  It should be mentioned that the article followed a negative report from the office of the Public Protector.  The applicant’s complaint is that the company did not only do debt collection, but other things as well, as stated above.  He did not deny that two days before the tender was awarded to MPA, he underwent a 5 day crash course in forensic investigation.  He also complained that it was inaccurate of the respondent to say that the company was paid R6m to investigate the theft of computers; according to him, they were to investigate a host of other things such as procurement of tenders.  He also complained:

·                that the article falsely said his wife was still working for the police, when she had resigned two months earlier;

·                that his recorded admission that he had not tendered for the work but was just asked by the MEC to do the work was supposed to be off the record.

[3]     The Sunday Times defence was inter alia:

3.1    that the article was in the public interest;

3.2    the story was a “straightforward news report” of the Public Protector’s provisional report etc.

[4]     The Ombud considered all the submissions, and dismissed the complaint in his Ruling dated 2 February 2017.  I agree with his decision as well as the reasons given.  It must be taken into account that:

4.1    The article was indeed based on a report by the Public Protector.

4.2    While MPA did other jobs, it certainly also listed debt collection as one of its activities.

4.3    Crucially, it cannot be denied that the applicant did mention that he was out in Kruger National Park when he was invited to take the job for which MPA was pad ± R6m by the MEC; and that he admitted he had not submitted any documents to tender for it.  True, he says it was meant to be off the record, but apparently he did not secure this beforehand.

4.4    Indeed, the matter was of huge public interest.

4.5    While the applicant is irked by the allegation that the R6m was for the investigation of the theft of computers, this information came from the MEC.

4.6    Two days before the contract was awarded, the applicant underwent a five day crash course in forensic investigation.

[5]     For all the reasons given by the Ombud and those mentioned above, I am of the view that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; accordingly, the application is turned down.

Dated this 20th day of March 2017

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel