Prof Mzobanzi Mboya vs. City Press
SUMMARY
The headline to the story in dispute read, Not playing by the book (published on 25 July 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 the celebrated academic, Kole Omotoso, had accused Prof Mzobanzi Mboya of stealing his copyright.
Mboya mainly complained this reportage was harmful to his dignity and reputation.
Retief said he was not going to decide who was right and who was wrong in this dispute (that was for a court of law to do) – his task was to determine whether the reportage was justified.
He noted that Mboya did not specify what he regarded as inaccurate in the article (which could have harmed his reputation). “I have no basis for ruling that anything should be retracted or that an apology is required,” he commented. He also had proof that the reporter did try (several times) to get comment from Mboya – who had ample time to respond, but for some reason did not do so.
The complaint was dismissed.
THE RULING ITSELF
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Sizwe Snail, on behalf of Prof Mzobanzi Matthewson Mboya, and those of Dumisane Lubisi, editor of the City Press newspaper.
Mboya is complaining about a story in City Press of 25 July 2017, headlined Not playing by the book.
Complaint
Mboya complains the reportage that Prof Kole Omotoso was accusing him of having stolen the copyright to his novel The Combat, was harmful to his dignity and reputation. He asks for a retraction and / or an apology.
He adds that his comment was only added to the online City Press story and did not appear in print as well.
The text
The article, penned by Charl Blignaut, said that celebrated academic Kole Omotoso had accused Mboya of stealing his copyright.
It continued, “The issue has to do with The Combat, the second of Omotoso’s nine novels. It was published in 1972 and republished by Penguin Classics in 2008. In 2007, it was translated by Mboya into isiXhosa as Iimbandezelo, and then suddenly appeared on the website of Mboya and his wife’s Pretoria firm, Ilitha Publishers, where it is on sale to this day for R84.62. It has also appeared on the education department catalogue of books available for order from schools in the Eastern Cape, targeting grades 7, 8 and 9.”
The journalist quoted Omotoso as saying that Mboya wanted to translate his work into isiXhosa. “I said it was okay. Nothing was signed and there was no talk of publishing it,” he said.
Omotoso claimed that neither he nor his attorneys could get a response from Mboya.
“I have now decided to go public with this story because I consider Professor Mboya’s behaviour in this matter unfair and unbecoming of a person of his status,” he reportedly complained.
Blignaut also reported that he had repeatedly attempted to contact Mboya.
At the end of the (online) article, the following text was added:
“Since this story was first published, Mboya responded to the allegations by Prof Omotoso. Mboya claims he had a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ with Omotoso that he may translate the book into isiXhosa and use 100 copies to ‘test the schools market’ for prescribed reading. Mboya claims he distributed the translated copies to different schools from 2007 to 2012 and also included the book in a marketing catalogue on his website, but that none of the schools were interested in prescribing the book for their learners. According to Mboya he made no profit from marketing the translated book. ‘It is disingenuous for your client to go around accusing our client in public of theft of his copyright and entitlements thereto as our client had a verbal gentlemen’s agreement with your client,’ Mboya’s attorney wrote to Omotoso’s attorney after City Press’ story appeared. Mboya did however undertake to remove the book from his website because of the pending dispute with Omotoso. He also threatened legal action against Omotoso and City Press.”
Analysis
Snail goes to lengths to explain the “agreement” made between Mboya and Omotoso. I have also been furnished with lawyers’ letters in this regard.
I am not taking any of these presentations into consideration, as they deal with the merits of this case (which might end up in court). However, my task is not to decide who is right and who is wrong in this dispute (again, that would be the task of a court of law) – my task is to determine whether the newspaper was ethical in performing its task.
Dumisane is correct: As Mboya does not outline exactly what he regards as inaccurate in the article, I have no basis for ruling that anything should be retracted or that an apology is required. The story was based on Omotoso’s actions against Mboya – and to the best of my knowledge these were reported accurately and reasonably.
Moreover, I have proof that the reporter did try (several times) to get comment from Mboya – who had ample time to respond, but for some reason did not do so.
I have previously stated that, if a subject of critical reportage does not respond to an opportunity to do so, that person does not have the right to complain. I commend City Press for publishing Mboya’s response online – which was sufficient under these circumstances as it represented more than what the professor was entitled to.
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