Lovey Modiba vs. Sowetan

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Hundreds lose as Ponzi goes bust – Limpopo official under investigation for failing to pay investors’ money (published on 14 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 Lovey Modiba and her boyfriend, Adv Ronald Tshikororo, faced a probe by the SA Reserve Bank for allegedly running a multi-million-rand pyramid scheme that swindled people out of their money. The company was reportedly modelled on the Indian Travel Venture International Express (TVI).

Modiba complained that the:

• article misleadingly and inaccurately reported that she had founded and operated an illegal pyramid scheme, intentionally swindling people out of their money, and modelling the company on the TVI;
• journalist did not give her a right of reply; and
• reportage had caused her severe embarrassment and had damaged her reputation.

Retief dismissed the complaint because:

• the story did not say that she had founded the operation – the journalist merely reported that she had operated the enterprise (and “allegedly”, at that);
• Sowetan did give her a right of reply – she was adequately quoted in the story;
• as she merely operated the scheme for a while, and had not founded it, it was debatable whether she had the knowledge to assess whether the enterprise had in fact been founded on TVI; and
• the article did not suggest that she was guilty – only that an investigation was underway.

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Aadil Mayet of Poswa Incorporated, on behalf of Lepelle-Nkumpi municipality’s executive manager, Lovey Modiba, and those of Wendy Pretorius of the Sowetan newspaper.

Modiba is complaining about a story of 14 March 2017, headlined Hundreds lose as Ponzi goes bust – Limpopo official under investigation for failing to pay investors’ money.

Complaint                                            

Modiba complains that the:

·         article misleadingly and inaccurately reported that she had founded and operated an illegal pyramid scheme, intentionally swindling people out of their money, and modelling the company on the Indian Travel Venture International Express (TVI); and

·         journalist did not give her a right of reply.

The reportage, she adds, has caused her severe embarrassment and has damaged her reputation.

The text

The article, written by Peter Ramothwala, said that Modiba and her boyfriend, Adv Ronald Tshikororo, faced a probe by the SA Reserve Bank for allegedly running a multi-million rand pyramid scheme that swindled people out of their money. They allegedly operated a travel scheme that promised people huge returns, car rentals and overseas trips if they deposited money into the couple’s bank accounts.

The company was reportedly modelled on the Indian Travel Venture International Express (TVI).

Modiba reportedly admitted she was running the scheme, but denied swindling people out of their money. She was also quoted as saying that she proposed to the Reserve Bank to “settle R800 000 which I personally benefitted”.

The story also stated, “[Modiba] said she stopped operating the scheme in 2012 after she heard that TVI was a fraud”.

The arguments

Modiba says she was introduced and recruited to TVI by a colleague of hers with whom she had worked in 2011, and when she joined she was not aware that the enterprise was a Ponzi scheme. She says TVI had hosted several public seminars and advertised its business, and argues that she had no reason to believe that TVI was a Ponzi scheme.

She also points out that she joined the scheme, and was not its founder.

Pretorius replies that the newspaper contacted Modiba, and that she did comment. She says Modiba also admitted to running the scheme, and that she had been a part of the Reserve Bank’s investigation into the matter – saying she stopped when the learnt the scheme was fraudulent.

Pretorius adds that the journalist gave Modiba an opportunity for a further interview, and invited her to provide any relevant documents she might have had.

Analysis

Modiba’s complaint has no legs to stand on:

·         The story did not say that she founded the operation – the journalist merely reported that she had operated the enterprise (and “allegedly” at that), a fact which she does not deny;

·         Sowetan did give her a right of reply – she was quoted in the story and adequately so;

·         As she merely operated the scheme for a while, and had not founded it, it is debatable whether she had the knowledge to assess whether the enterprise was in fact founded on TVI; and

·         The article did not suggest that she was guilty – only that an investigation was underway.

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