Luthando Mbinda vs. The Citizen

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Strife tears PAC apart (printed version); and, Mbinda, Moloto war threatening to tear PAC apart (online). These were published on 28 April 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 a power struggle between PAC President Luthando Mbinda and PAC secretary-general Narius Moloto was threatening to divide the party and even to cause it to break up. Their feud had reportedly already resulted in the PAC “breaking into factions”.

Mbinda complained that the article, which was “unbalanced” and “not representative of the views of the PAC”, falsely stated that:

• the party had said that he had “crossed the line” when he had organized the reburial programme for exhumed former PAC members, using five “unknown” people; and
• there were two faction groups in the PAC.

He added that the journalist did not give either him or the PAC a right of reply.

Retief dismissed the complaint, because:

• he had no reason to disbelieve that Moloto (who indeed represented an official voice within the PAC) made that statement or, in fact, to believe that the newspaper had lied about the information it had garnered from its sources;
• the sources had the right to say what they did, as had The Citizen to report their views;
• he had proof that the journalist did try, more than once, to get hold of Mbinda prior to publication; and
• the stories reported those attempts to contact Mbinda, stating that he could not be reached for comment – as was required by the Press Code.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of PAC President Luthando Mbinda and those of Martin Czernowalow, news editor at The Citizen newspaper.

Mbinda is complaining about a story in The Citizen 28 April 2017, headlined Strife tears PAC apart (printed version), and Mbinda, Moloto war threatening to tear PAC apart (online).

Complaint                                            

Mbinda complains that the article, which was “unbalanced” and “not representative of the views of the PAC”, falsely stated that:

·         the party had said that Mbinda “crossed the line” when he organized the reburial programme for exhumed former PAC members using five “unknown” people; and

·         there were two faction groups in the PAC.

He adds that the journalist did not give either him or the PAC a right of reply.

The text

The introductory sentence to the article, written by Eric Naki, adequately summarised the story. It read, “A power struggle between … Mbinda and secretary-general Narius Moloto is threatening to divide the party and even to cause it to break up.”

Their feud had reportedly already resulted in the PAC “breaking into factions”.

Naki wrote that the enmity between the two leaders was reportedly so serious that they were not on speaking terms – and that their disagreement had spread to the social media.

He also reported the PAC had said that Mbinda had “crossed the line” when he organized a recent reburial programme for the exhumed remains of several former PAC activists, using five people “unknown to the party”.

The Citizen responds

On the PAC

Czernowalow denies that the story did not reflect the PAC’s views. He says the journalist spoke to “highly-placed sources” within the organisation, and a comment by Moloto (who represents an official voice within the PAC) was published.

Furthermore, he continues, it was Moloto (speaking in his official capacity) who said that Mbinda had “crossed the line” when he had organized the reburial programme for exhumed former PAC members.

The news editor also says the statement that there were two factions in the PAC was a view expressed by sources within the party – which was confirmed by Moloto. The story did not state this as fact, but attributed the statement to these sources.

He denies that the story was in breach of the Code, but offers Mbinda the opportunity to clarify any confusion which, in his opinion, might have resulted from the article.

No right of reply

Czernowalow says Naki informed him that he had tried to contact Mbinda several times on April 21 for comment – and had left several messages with someone who had claimed to be the leader’s bodyguard. However, Mbinda never replied (despite being aware of the media enquiry). He says the reporter tried to contact Mbinda again later that day, just before he submitted the story for publication, but with the same result.

(In later correspondence he corrects this date – it was April 27, he says, and not April 21.)

He argues, “[Mbinda], therefore, had sufficient time and opportunity to respond to the media inquiry, but chose not to do so.” He says he has proof of these attempts to contact Mbinda.

The news editor notes that the printed version reflected Naki’s attempts to contact Mbinda, and the online story stated he could not be reached for comment.

Mbinda replies

Mbinda wants to know:

·         how The Citizen can say that he knew about the media enquiry if the newspaper could (allegedly) not reach him;

·         whether Naki contacted his office in Parliament, as he should have;

·         whether the journalist also tried to contact him via WhatsApp – which he had done several times before, and to which he responded; and

·         whether the newspaper had exhausted all possible means of contacting him for comment.

He also notes that Naki did not attribute the statement that he had “crossed the line” to a source. He says, “[Naki] does not put this as an allegation, assumption or supposition advanced by any of his sources, named or unnamed.” – and adds that it cannot be inferred that those were Moloto’s words, as Czernowalow argues.

Analysis

On the PAC

From the story it is clear that Naki referred to Moloto regarding the statement that Mbinda had “crossed the line” – he first referred to “the party” (therefore, an official voice) who made that statement, and then he continued by specifically referring to the secretary-general.

I have no reason to disbelieve that Moloto (who indeed represents an official voice within the PAC) made that statement or, in fact, to believe that the newspaper lies about the information it has garnered from its sources.

Those sources had the right to say what they did, as had The Citizen to report their views. I note in this regard that the entire story was couched within references to comments made by sources – which means that also the reference to factions within the PAC should be interpreted in that light. One should be careful not to isolate a single sentence, at the expense of seeing the bigger picture (the context).

The fact that Mbinda does not agree with those views is not relevant – I am not going to find that the newspaper was in breach of the Code of Ethics and Conduct just because he disagrees with the views expressed, or simply did not like to see them in print.

No right of reply

I have proof that Naki did try, more than once, to get hold of Mbinda prior to publication.

Not quite satisfied, I have asked Czernowalow the following questions:

• How can you say Mbinda knew about the media enquiry if the journalist could (allegedly) not reach him;
• Did Naki contact Mbinda’s office in Parliament; and
• Did Naki also try to contact Mbinda via WhatsApp – which he had done several times before and to which Mbinda responded.

The news editor responded that Naki says that:

·         he left two messages for Mbinda with a person who identified himself as his bodyguard – and who assured the journalist that he would pass on the messages;

·         his normal and regular form of communication with Mbinda was via the latter’s cellphone, thus he was satisfied that he had done enough to alert him that he wished to speak to him. He was also told that Mbinda was in a meeting, and therefore did not think that he would be reachable at his office in Parliament; and

·         Whatsapp was not a regular form of communication between himself and Mbinda; therefore he did not think it necessary to resort to that platform, especially in light of the fact that he had been assured by the bodyguard that his messages would be relayed. Besides, since Mbinda’s cellphone was in the bodyguard’s possession at the time, contacting him via a Whatsapp message would not have been any more successful.

Czernowalow concludes, “Thus, I submit that Eric Naki felt he had exhausted all reasonable avenues of contacting Mr Mbinda on a tight deadline, before submitting the article for publication – which in this case he also held back as late as possible in case Mr Mbinda decided to revert with comment.”

This convinces me that the journalist did not breach the Code in this regard.

I also note that the stories reported those attempts to contact Mbinda, stating that he could not be reached for comment – as required by the Code.

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

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