National Home Builders’ Registration Council vs. Mail & Guardian
SUMMARY
The headline to the story in dispute read, Building board lines its pocket – A dossier makes allegations of members’ fees escalating and plans to outsource their own work (published on 13 April 2018).
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, according to a dossier compiled by executives of the council, the board of the National Home Builders’ Registration Council (NHBRC) had held more than 100 meetings in a year, that it had planned to outsource its core work, and that its members had lacked even a basic knowledge of their job.
Tshepo Nkosi, manager: corporate communication and stakeholder relations of the NHBRC, complained that the article was deliberately biased, unfair, distorted and vexatious – this was despite providing the newspaper with a factual response (which it had omitted to report). He also said it was inaccurate to state that the board fees had escalated from R6-million in 2014 to R11,5-million in 2015.
Retief agreed that the article could have been clearer regarding the distinction between executive and non-executive members – however, this was not serious enough to warrant a finding that the M&G had breached the Press Code. He noted that the crux of the story was not to give a detailed account of monies spent on directors – the issue was the increase in remuneration.
Dismissing the complaint, the Ombud said the newspaper reported correctly on this issue – the amounts mentioned in the article were substantially correct, taking the total expenditure of both types of directors into account. He was also satisfied that the article gave adequate space to Nkosi’s reply.
THE RULING ITSELF
PARTICULARS
|
Lodged by
|
Tshepo Nkosi, manager: corporate communication and stakeholder relations of the National Home Builders’ Registration Council (NHBRC)
|
|
Date of article
|
13 April 2018 |
|
Headline
|
Building board lines its pocket – A dossier makes allegations of members’ fees escalating and plans to outsource their own work
|
|
Page
|
12 |
|
Author of article
|
Athandiwe Saba |
|
Respondent |
Beauregard Tromp, deputy editor |
Complaint
Nkosi complains that the article was deliberately biased, unfair, distorted and vexatious – despite providing the newspaper with a factual response (which it has omitted to report).
He also mentions it was inaccurate to state that the board fees had escalated from R6-million in 2014 to R11,5-million in 2015.
The text
The article said that, according to a dossier compiled by executives of the council, the NHBRC’s board had held more than 100 meetings in a year, had planned to outsource its core work, and its members had lacked even a basic knowledge of their job.
These executives reportedly pleaded with the Department of Human Settlements, Scopa and the Minister of Public Enterprises to intervene and investigate the “erosion” of the council.
According to this dossier, board members’ fees have escalated from approximately R6-million in 2014 to more than R11.8-million in 2015. The board’s annual reports also showed that spending on board members, executive and non-executive, increased to more than R18-million during the 2016 financial year.
The arguments
Nkosi says the glaring omission of his response in the article indicated a lack of journalistic integrity and ethics, and alleges that the Mail & Guardian has allowed itself to be used in driving a certain agenda.
Regarding the escalation of fees, he says the 2015 / 16 Annual Report (page 128) reflected that the total remuneration for the non-executive council members was R1, 518, 094 (in 2015) and R2, 765, 760 (in 2016). He says this “sudden increase” was fully explained in his response.
He adds that the R18-million spent in 2016 could be attributed to council members’ fees. “This was also clarified in our response to the journalist who elected to omit these important facts,” he says.
Tromp says the article offered a balanced view of the situation at the NHBRC, having taken into consideration the comments as provided to the newspaper by Nkosi the article also provided all concerned parties with significant space to air their views on the matter.
He says it was clear from financial reports that there was “a massive inflation” in terms of payments made, year on year, and argues that the NHBRC tries to dismiss this significant increase by limiting the issue to executive members only.
He says the figures provided by Nkosi may be correct, but argues that the article looked at the entire council, which included executive and non-executive board members.
The deputy editor says annual reports state the following regarding directors’ emoluments:
· R6 091 282 (2014);
· R11 835 641 (2015); and
· R18 222 539 (2016).
He explains that the main thrust of the allegations came from a dossier compiled by concerned executives within the council and included an exit interview with the person who occupied the most senior position in the organisation, namely CEO Mongezi Mnyani.
Tromp also points out that the article extensively quoted Nkosi’s explanation for the massive increase in remuneration.
He concludes that this office should dismiss the complaint as the NHBRC has not suffered any undue prejudice as a result of the reportage.
Nkosi reiterates that the amounts stated by the publication were misconstrued, as they included the remuneration of executive directors.
He says the NHBRC has informed the journalist about the differences between non-executive council members (the board) and the executive members (i.e. managers), and has indicated that the item that deals with directors’ emoluments included both executive and non-executive directors’ remuneration.
He adds it is clear from the headline that the focus of the story was on the former – contrary to Tromp’s assertion that article was about the entire council.
He presents me with the following figures from the NHBRC’s annual reports:
|
Non-executive directors
|
Executive directors
|
|
|
2014/15 (p 106)
|
R1 303 975 |
R4 903 961 |
|
2015/16 (p 128)
|
R1 518 094 |
R10 665 123 |
|
2016/17 (p 104)
|
R2 765 760 |
R14 241 966 |
|
2017
|
R1 847 932 |
R9 519 260 |
Analysis
I agree that the article could have been clearer regarding the distinction between executive and non-executive members – however, I do not believe that this was serious enough to warrant a finding that the M&G has breached the Press Code.
The crux of the story was not to give a detailed account of monies spent on directors – the issue was the increase in remuneration. The newspaper succeeded in reporting correctly on this particular issue – the amounts mentioned in the article were substantially correct, taking the total expenditure of both types of directors into account.
Even if the costs were split into two sections, the increase would still have been dramatic (for instance, executive directors’ remuneration shot up from nearly R5-million to over R14-million in a mere two years).
I am also satisfied that the article gave adequate space to Nkosi’s reply.
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