Gengezi Mgidlana vs. EWN

SUMMARY

The headlines to the stories in dispute read, Parliament to fire security boss Zelda Holtzman? (published on 9 October 2017); Parliament’s security boss Zelda Holtzman fired (October 11); and, Zelda Holtzman: Parly’s reason for dismissal almost laughable (October 11).

This ruling by the Appeals Panel was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

The first article said that Parliament had been considering whether to fire its suspended security boss Zelda Holtzman following an independent disciplinary process; the second story reported that Parliament had decided to dismiss Holtzman with immediate effect – a few days after the chairperson of her disciplinary inquiry recommended that she be dismissed, and more than two years after she had been placed on suspension; the third article quoted Holtzman who reportedly said she believed she had been unfairly treated for clashing with Gengezi Mgidlana, Secretary to Parliament, and for refusing to sign off on certain plans.

The Adjudication Panel directed EWN to apologise to Mgidlana for not reporting his denial of Holtzman’s accusation in the third article (about having been unfairly treated by him), and to correct the number of complaints and findings against Holtzman. Some parts of the complaint were dismissed.

The publication then successfully applied for leave to appeal.

The Appeals Panel opined that the matter had to be considered against the fact that both the headline and the content of the first story, as well as the headline of the second story, stated theft as a fact. They said the mistake the publication made was to leave out of account the first story. “The second story is a follow-up story to the first one and must be considered with the first one; after all, a follow-up story is precisely that: it is meant to be read in conjunction with or against the background of the previous one,” the Panel stated.

The Panel said that, although the Ombud’s Adjudication Panel might have followed a different reasoning, they were of the view that the findings and the sanction of their ruling were correct. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the ruling and sanction of the Adjudication Panel were confirmed.

THE RULING ITSELF IS NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE