Appeal Decision: Budhram Pecku

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, The booze devil raises tempers in Shaka’s Head (published on 13 April 2018).

This ruling by the Chair of the Appeals Panel Judge Bernard Ngoepe was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

The story was about a liquor outlet at Shaka’s Head, run by Budram Pecku from his house, whose customers reportedly posed a threat to passers-by and scared churchgoers away.

Pecku’s complaint against the article was that it had not accurately reported on the matter and that it had failed to mention that there were two shebeens in the area.  He also attached an affidavit from the pastor of the church, denying that he had been interviewed by the journalist, or that he had complained about the matter.

The Ombud dismissed the complaint, saying said he had no evidence that:

• the journalist had falsified any information; instead, he had evidence to the contrary (coming from the police, the KZN liquor board district inspector, residents and the journalist);
• the journalist did not properly investigate the story – on the contrary, he commended her for all the effort she did put in to produce a balanced article; and
• the report lacked context.

The Ombud remarked that the matter was in the public interest and concluded that the reasonable reader would not have understood that the story had questioned Pecku’s non-compliance with liquor regulations. Pecku applied for leave to appeal the Ombud’s decision to dismiss the entire complaint.

Judge Ngoepe agreed with the Ombud. He added that the pastor’s affidavit was false, as the journalist’s interview with him had been recorded. Clearly, the journalist took the trouble to investigate the complaints by the residents; the content of the article was a fair reflection of the complaints, he opined.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

THE RULING ITSELF

In the matter of

BUDHRAM PECKU                                                   APPLICANT

AND

1.       In his Ruling dated 2 May 2018, the Press Ombud dismissed a complaint by Mr Budhram Pecku (“applicant”) against North Coast Courier (“respondent”); hence this application by the applicant for leave to appeal.  The application is opposed by the respondent.

2.       For an application to succeed, the applicant must show that it has reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Committee of the Press Council.  I must therefore assess such prospects.

3.       The complaint followed an article which was published by the respondent in its edition of 13 April 2018, with the headline “The booze devil raises tempers”.  The story was about a liquor outlet owned by the applicant.  It said there were complaints by residents in the neighborhood about the behavior of some of the applicant’s patrons under the influence of liquor.  There was even an allegation of an attempted rape on a teenager. Other complaints included patrons urinating all over the place.  The article mentioned as one of the complainants a pastor of a church close to the store.  It went on to mention that complaints had been lodged with the police and the liquor board.

4.       The applicant’s complaint against the article was that it had not accurately reported on the matter; it failed to mention that there were two shebeens in the area.  The applicant also attached an affidavit from the pastor of the church, denying that he had been interviewed by the journalist, or that he complained.

5.       The respondent stuck to its story. Unfortunately, it turned out that, notwithstanding the pastor’s denial that he was interviewed by the journalist and that he did complain, he had actually been recorded. The telephone number the journalist had used, had been given as that of the pastor; this was not denied by the pastor himself.

6.       In his application for leave to appeal, the applicant raises new matters which have no bearing on the application.  In my view, the Ombud was correct to dismiss the complaint.  It is clear that the journalist took the trouble to investigate the complaints by the residents; the content of the article was a fair reflection of the complaints. Finally, whereas the Ombud said that it was not for him to adjudicate on the veracity of the pastor’s affidavit, I have no hesitation in holding that, in my view, the pastor’s affidavit is patently false insofar as he denies that he was not interviewed.  There are many pointers to this; to mention a few: he does not deny that the cell number used by the journalist was his, although his son tried to do so; he was recorded and does not deny that; he said to others that he did not know when he was interviewed that what he said would come out in the media; then there is the strange story of the pastor and the applicant knowing, and then not knowing, each other; it is mentioned that the pastor spoke of the need to erect a higher fence to protect or secure the church even though the church had very little money – secure or protect the church against what if there is no complaint at all?

7.       For the reasons given above, including those given by the Ombud, I hold that the appeal has no reasonable prospects of success; the application is therefore dismissed.

Dated this 2^nd day of July 2018

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel