Stephen Hinana vs. Volksblad

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Juffrou in hof oor kind: Landdros onttrek hom oor ‘rassekaart’ (published on 7 March 2017).

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

 

The article said that chief magistrate Stephen Hinana (in Upington) had recused himself from a case in which a white primary school teacher had been accused of an inappropriate sexual act with a female minor “after he had played the racecard”.

Hinana complained that the:

• racecard statement was reported without the proper context (in that it omitted some material information); and
• journalist did not give him a right of reply prior to publication.

Retief said it was true that the article did not specifically state that Hinana had invited the teacher’s attorney, Chris Wessels, and everybody concerned to talk about this perceived bias, and that he had not been prepared to tolerate racial bias under his watch. “However, I cannot view this as a material omission as other statements of his, included in the report, pointed to exactly that – that the magistrate would not tolerate racism or a racial bias in his courtroom,” he opined. The fact that Hinana recused himself after having been accused of using the racecard was further proof of his resolve not to allow racism in his courtroom.

The complaint that the journalist did not give him a right of reply prior to publication could also not hold water – in court reporting, it was normal journalistic practice to report what happened in court, without asking the various parties for comment.

The complaint was dismissed.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of chief magistrate Stephen Hinana (in Upington), and those of Anena Burger, journalist of the Volksblad newspaper.

Hinana is complaining about a story in Volksblad of 7 March 2017, headlined Juffrou in hof oor kind: Landdros onttrek hom oor ‘rassekaart’.

Complaint                                            

Hinana complains that the:

·         story stated that he had recused himself from a court case because he had played the race-card – but reported this without the proper context (in that it omitted material information); and

·         journalist has not given him a right of reply prior to publication.

The text

The article, written by Burger, said that Hinana had recused himself from a case (in which a white primary school teacher had been accused of an inappropriate sexual act with a female minor) “after he had played the race-card”.

The story recounted an urgent bail application by the accused, which the state opposed. Hinana reportedly said that he would not treat the accused differently just because she was white. The teacher’s attorney, Mr Chris Wessels, retorted that his firm treats everybody in the same way (irrespective of their colour). He also reportedly disapproved of Hinana’s statement, saying it is regrettable that the magistrate had played the race-card – after which Hinana recused himself from the case.

The arguments

Hinana says Wessels insisted on him handling the bail application even though it was after hours. He then asked the attorney whether his eagerness was related to the fact that the accused was a white woman – besides, there were other bail applicants who had also waited a long time for their cases to be heard and if he heard her case first, he could be accused of creating a perception of racial bias by the court. “I invited the Attorney and all concerned at court to talk about this perceived bias. I am not prepared to have a racial bias flourish under my watch. None of this is reported in the article, which I view as a material omission.”

Burger denies that the article portrayed Hinana as a racist, adding that she never viewed him as such and had always seen him as fair and reasonable (and still does).

She argues that she merely reported what had happened in court and “summarized correctly” what Hinana and Wessels had said.

The magistrate submitted a screenshot showing Burger inter alia stating that Wessels pushed Hinana too far and that that was wrong of him.

Analysis

Hinana does not complain about what the story said, but rather about what it neglected to state (read: omitting material information, or the proper context). Indeed, he does not deny that Wessels accused him of having played the race-card, or that he recused himself from the case – instead, he is concerned that the story might have created the impression that he showed a racial bias (against white people), while his intention was the opposite.

The magistrate should not be worried about that – the story quoted him as saying that the accused should be treated like any other person, which in fact portrayed the opposite of racism. Burger also quoted him as saying that he would not give the accused preferential treatment just because she was white. Again, this does not smack of racism – on the contrary.

It is true that Burger did not specifically state that Hinana had invited Wessels and all concerned to talk about this perceived bias, and that he had not been prepared to tolerate racial bias under his watch. However, I cannot view this as a material omission as other statements of his, included in the report, pointed to exactly that – that the magistrate would not tolerate racism or a racial bias in his courtroom.

The fact that Hinana recused himself after having been accused of using the race-card is further proof of his resolve not to allow racism in his courtroom.

The complaint that Burger did not give him a right of reply prior to publication cannot hold water – in court reporting, it is normal journalistic practice to report what happened in court, without asking the various parties for comment.

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

Request

Because I have dismissed the complaint, I have no mandate to impose a sanction on Volksblad.

However, I am concerned that Hinana might still feel that the article unnecessarily portrayed him in a negative light.

I am therefore asking (note: not instructing) Volksblad to either give Hinana a right of reply in the form of a letter to the editor (if indeed the magistrate wants to make use of such an opportunity), or to report the gist of my finding – which was that I have dismissed his complaint because I do not believe the story portrayed him as having displayed any racial bias.

I also note that the story referred to Hinana as “Steven”, while he is “Stephen”. I urge the journalist to get his first name right in future.

Appeal

The 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