Colin Arendse vs Sunday Times

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, World’s Most Dangerous City – That’s what Cape Town will become if cops fail to halt surge in gangland killings (published on 30 June 2019).

This ruling by Press Ombud Pippa Green was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

 

The article dealt mainly with attempts by the police anti-gang unit to deal with gang violence that plagued particularly the Cape Flats. The introductory sentence read, “As the murder rate in the Mother City spirals, it has emerged that a botched attempt to set up a police squad to rein in murderous gangs has backfired, leaving a trail of dead bodies and recrimination in its wake.” It added that, while “politicians bicker” and “police commanders wage their own civil war”, hundreds of poorly trained police officers had become sitting ducks for the gangs.

Colin Arendse, a community activist, complained that:

• the article untruthfully referred to him as “General Vearey’s unofficial spokesperson”;
• his response to the reporter was not accurately or adequately reported; and
• the use of the word “assassination” implied that he had committed a criminal offence.

Green said it seemed from the context that it was the journalist who had called Arendse an “unofficial spokesman” for Vearey – in the story this description of him was not attributed. She remarked that this had been an assumption and noted that neither of the men had confirmed this. The newspaper was directed to apologise for this.

She dismissed the rest of the complaint.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

Finding Complaint 6628

Date of Publication:  30/6/19

Headline: World’s Most Dangerous City

Page: 1 (turning to page 4)

Online: Yes

Author: Aron Hyman

Particulars

This finding is based on a written complaint by Mr Colin Arendse, a written response from Ms Susan Smuts of the Sunday Times, and a further response by Mr Arendse. I also referenced a YouTube clip of an interview conducted by Mr Hyman with Mr Arendse.

Complaint

Mr Colin Arendse, a community activist, complains that an article in the Sunday Times, published under the headline, “World’s Most Dangerous City” with a strap: “That’s what Cape Town will become if cops fail to halt surge in gangland killings”, untruthfully referred to him as “General Vearey’s unofficial spokesperson”. He also complains that his response to the reporter was not accurately or adequately reported thus violating the “basic journalism rule of audi alterem partem”. He also complains the wording of a particular sentence that used the word “assassination” gives the reader the impression that he had committed a criminal offence.

He does not state the sections of the Press Code he complains have been breached but from his complaint they are the following:

The media shall:

1.1 take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly;

1.2 present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarization;

1.3 present only what may reasonably be true as fact; opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such;

1.8 seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication, except when they might be prevented from reporting, or evidence destroyed, or sources intimidated. Such a subject should be afforded reasonable time to respond; if unable to obtain comment, this shall be stated;

1. Text

1.1 The article, under the headline “World’s Most Dangerous City”, with a strap that reads “That’s what Cape Town will become is cops fail to halt surge in gangland killings,” deals mainly with attempts by the police anti-gang unit to deal with gang violence that plagues particularly the Cape Flats.

1.2 The intro states: “As the murder rate in the Mother City spirals, it has emerged that a botched attempt to set up a police squad to rein in murderous gangs has backfired, leaving a trail of dead bodies and recrimination in its wake.”

It adds that while “politicians bicker” and “police commanders wage their own civil war”, “hundreds of poorly trained police officers have become sitting ducks for the gangs.”

1.3 It reports that six anti-gang unit members were shot during an operation in Philippi earlier in June. This followed a “54-hour period in which 62 murder victims arrived in Cape Town mortuaries.”

It quotes figures from Professor Lorna Martin, head of forensic pathology in the Western Cape, saying that of the 1280 murder victims in city mortuaries until the end of April, more than half had been shot.

If the “body count” is maintained, it will make Cape Town the world’s most dangerous city ranked by number of murders.

1.4 It cites some international comparisons, saying Cape Town was 11^th for percapita murders in a survey conducted in 2018.

1.5 It quotes mayoral committee member JP Smith describing a “meteoric climb” in murders and warning that “if we don’t do something urgent we will end up as the world’s most dangerous city.”

1.6 It then focuses on issues affecting the anti-gang unit, set up by President Cyril Ramaphosa in late 2018, which has been “transferred” to national control by police minister Bheki Cele.

It quotes a Cape Town lawyer, Johan Nortje, who represents the unit’s commander, Maj Gen Andre Lincoln, saying the unit had been “set up to fail”, as it had been established six months before the national election in an “ANC attempt to gain votes on the Cape Flats.”

He said the unit was “improperly constituted” and relied for its personnel on short-term secondments from police stations across the province.

The article cites recent developments amid what it calls “the soaring murder rate and the anti-gang unit’s failure.”

These include that Maj Gen Khombinkosi Jula will be removed from his post as Western Cape Provincial Commissioner “after a year of bitter squabbles and cut-throat battle for the job”; that Premier Alan Winde was “concerned” that he would be replaced by “controversial” provincial detective, Maj Gen Jeremy Vearey; and that “police are appealing a High Court judgment that exonerated anti-gang unit boss Lincoln of corruption related to his relationship with Italian mafia boss Vita Palazzolo.”

1.7 It notes Maj Gen Jula declined to comment about “the anti-gang unit and attacks he has faced since the start of the year from Vearey’s unofficial spokesman Colin Arendse.” It then quotes JP Smith “reflecting on Arendse’s Facebook posts, in which he describes Jula as a ‘Bantustan despot’ or a ‘Bantustan stooge’” telling a news conference: “I have never in all my career seen a senior police officer use a proxy to assassinate a  fellow senior police-officer’s career like that. It is disgusting.”

1.8 It reports that “battle lines were drawn when Jula gave Lincoln – a Vearey ally – 1 out of 5 on his performance as the winelands visible policing head. Lincoln instigated a grievance, calling for Jula to be disciplined for ‘unfair labour practice’ and demanding to report to the national commissioner instead. Animosity has been further fuelled by the Western Cape police’s decision to ask the Supreme Court of Appeal to overturn Lincoln’s exoneration in the Palazzolo corruption case.”

1.9 It reports that Premier Winde “is said” to be writing to national police commissioner Gen Kehla Sitole “over concerns that Vearey may replace Jula”.

He said SAPS was “obliged to consult the province before appointing a new commissioner and that the province wanted an “individual of the highest integrity, who has no factional relationships, who does not have any political affiliations or allegations of ties to the gang underworld.”

1.10 It notes that Maj Gen Vearey did “not respond to questions” from the newspaper, and quotes a “senior source” from the DA provincial government saying it opposed Vearey’s appointment because of “his strong ties to the ANC.”

1.11 It goes on to quote Mr Smith saying there had been 900 murders in Cape Town’s “gang strongholds” in the past year, double the previous record, as well as a community policing forum chair in Elsies River describing the near “civil war”, and an independent researcher criticizing the government for “never responding in a coherent way” to violent crime.

2. The arguments

Mr Arendse

2.1 Mr Arendse says on 27 June 2019, he received a call from reporter Aron Hyman who asked him for comment on a public statement made by DA Mayoral committee member in the City of Cape Town, JP Smith, at a press conference earlier that day. The reporter told him Mr Smith had “publicly stated that “General Jeremy Vearey is using yourself as a proxy for what is essentially a character and career assassination aimed at obviously General Sitole and General Jula”.

General Sitole is the National Police Commissioner and General Jula is the outgoing Provincial Police Commissioner of the Western Cape.

2.2 He says he repeatedly asked him “for proof of the allegation that JP Smith had made but he ignored me and referred instead to various Facebook posts of mine” about the two officers.

“I then told Hyman that these were two separate issues and that because I had no proof that JP Smith was in fact referring to my fb posts, I required proof and evidence of what Smith had referred to in the press conference.”

Mr Arendse has provided a YouTube link to the conversation he had with Mr Hyman, which he says will “confirm that I asked Aron Hyman on several occasions for proof of what JP Smith had stated in public. “

2.3 During the “interrogation” by Mr Hyman, he says he used the word “facts” twice, “proof” four times; “evidence”, 10 times, and “sworn affidavit” seven times.

“I am satisfied that I made it very clear to Aron Hyman that I could only comment if I was in possession of irrefutable proof from JP Smith that I was, as he had averred, a “proxy for General Jeremy Vearey” and that this allegation should be in the form of a sworn statement/affidavit.”

2.4 He says he told Mr Hyman that he could not “force” him to give the answer he (Mr Hyman) wanted and accused the reporter of trying to “bulldoze” him.

“I was also concerned that Aron Hyman had raised an issue regarding the court case of General Andre Lincoln, who is also the head of the Anti-Gang Unit. I spoke to another journalist who was at the same press briefing and he stated, emphatically, that General Lincoln’s court case was not discussed in the briefing at all. In the absence of any other proof to the contrary, I can only assume that Aron Hyman had a separate additional meeting with JP Smith where this matter was covertly discussed and included in the Sunday Times report to give the impression that it formed part of the press briefing when the facts indicate otherwise.”

2.5 He says he was “shocked” that the paper had “not quoted a single word “ from the seven-minute telephone call.

2.6 He quotes the following excerpt from the article: Gen Jula “declined to comment about the Anti-Gang Unit and attacks he has faced since the start of the year from Vearey’s unofficial spokesman, Colin Arendse. Reflecting on Arendse’s Facebook posts, in which he describes Jula as a “Bantustan despot” or a “Bantustan stooge”, Smith told a news conference this week: “I have never in all my career seen a police officer use a proxy to assassinate a fellow senior police officer’s career like that. It is disgusting”. He says readers “can be left with the impression “that I am the proxy or representative or spokesman for General Jeremy Vearey;”

He also argues that readers would believe he did not comment “when, in fact, I did respond, as clearly articulated above; the Sunday Times deliberately chose NOT to print my response.”

Thus a reader would think the report is factual in the absence of any rebuttal.

2.7 He also argues that the reader could think he may have committed a criminal offence by linking the words “attack” and “assassination” in the paragraph mentioning him.

2.8 He says he is not in the employ of the SA Police Service “and the fact that I know General Vearey and speak to him is only because of my activism and exposure of police corruption in the Western Cape which appears to have escaped the attention of the Sunday Times.”  He cites, as an example that he’d laid criminal charges following the theft of 25 police guns and 225 rounds of ammunition, which he accuses Maj Gen Jula of failing to investigate

2.9 He accuses the Sunday Times of “ambush journalism”. He says he is “a respected community activist” whose “character has been defamed, destroyed and impugned by the Sunday Times and their deliberate, malicious fake news report.”

Ms Susan Smuts for the Sunday Times

2.10 Ms Smuts acknowledges that the newspaper failed to attribute the comment that Mr Arendse is an “unofficial spokesman” for Maj-Gen Jeremy Vearey to JP Smith, and has offered to retract this and apologise.

2.11 However, Ms Smuts argues there was no breach of section 1.8 of the Press Code. “Mr Arendse told our reporter he would not comment unless our reporter gave him proof of what Mr Smith said in the press conference. Be that as it may, our responsibility was to give Mr Arendse an opportunity to comment. He elected to put up a barrier instead of using the opportunity. However, there was no need, in terms of the press code, to include comment from Mr Arendse. He made Facebook posts and Mr Smith commented on these in a press conference. Our attempt to elicit comment was a courtesy he rejected.”

2.12 She says that the complaint that he was “interrogated” by the journalist is unsubstantiated, as is the claim that the reporter was involved in “covert” discussions about General Lincoln .The story did not say that General Lincoln was mentioned in the press conference.

2.13 The accusations that the paper published “fake news”, or practised “ambush journalism”, or that it “defamed, destroyed and impugned” Mr Arendse’s character are “somewhat overblown” and “have no basis in fact”.

Further Arguments

2.14 In response, Mr Arendse refers again to the paragraph that reports mayoral committee member JP Smith criticizing his Facebook posts about General Jula, as well as the comment attributed to Mr Smith:

“Smith CLEARLY refers to me as a proxy in this public outburst and the Sunday Times repeated this character assassination of me as truth without quoting ANYTHING from my seven minute interrogation by Hyman (a clear and misleading indication to the reader that I chose not to comment).”

3. Analysis

3.1 The main breaches of the Press Code Mr Arendse complains of are in terms of Section 1: the media shall take care to report news truthfully and accurately, present news in context, and present only what may be reasonably true as fact.

This is in relation to the claim made by the newspaper that he is Maj Gen Vearey’s “unofficial spokesman.”

3.2 He also complains that his response was not reflected in the piece.

3.3 He third complaint relates to a paragraph that mentions the Western Cape police’s decision to ask the Supreme Court of Appeal to overturn General Lincoln’s “exoneration in the Palazzolo corruption case”. He says this was not mentioned at the briefing by JP Smith – something he had ascertained through speaking to another reporter who was there.

3.4 In support of his arguments, Mr Arendse attached a YouTube clip of the telephone conversation he had had with the reporter.

3.5 On the first issue of truthful and accurate reporting: the report was an in-depth look at the challenges the police face in containing gang violence in the Western Cape.

It reports some of the contention around the police anti-gang unit and quotes various role players ascribing the failure to contain gang violence to tensions within the police force itself.

The tension involves a number of senior police officers, including Maj Gen Jeremy Vearey, Lt Gen Khombinkosi Jula, and Maj Gen Andre Lincoln, whom the report describes as a “Vearey ally”.

3.6 The story is essentially a news feature about gang violence and the murder rate in Cape Town, and the “bickering” between politicians and senior police officers.

It cites a range of local and international statistics and quotes a number of role players, including mayoral committee member JP Smith, the politician who criticized Mr Arendse’s Facebook posts calling Lt Gen Jula a “Bantustan stooge”.

3.7 It seems from the context that it was Mr Smith who had called Mr Arendse an “unofficial spokesman” for Maj Gen Vearey but in the story this description of him is not attributed. In fact, the reporter describes him this way himself. He also uses the adjective “controversial” to describe Maj Gen Vearey.

3.8 The reporter should not have assumed that Mr Arendse is Maj Gen Vearey’s “unofficial spokesman”, if in fact neither of the men had confirmed this.

It would probably have been fair to have described him as a supporter judging from his Facebook posts.

Although this was not part of the complaint, it can also not be acceptable for a reporter to describe one party in what he terms a “civil war” between police officers as “controversial”, yet not the other parties involved in this “war”, if indeed there is one. Calling someone “controversial” without any substantiation usually gives the reader more insight into the reporter’s own views than into the person being reported on.

The reporter compounds this by calling Mr Arendse his “unofficial spokesman”.

The Sunday Times has admitted that this comment should have been attributed to Mr Smith and has offered an apology.

3.9 On the right of reply: I listened to the conversation between Mr Hyman and Mr Arendse, in which Mr Hyman does in fact attribute the comment that Mr Arendse is Maj Gen Vearey’s “proxy” to Mr Smith. He asks Mr Arendse to comment on Mr Smith’s statement at the briefing, including that he had engaged in “character assassination” of Maj Gen Jula and General Sitole.

3.10 But instead of offering any, comment, Mr Arendse asks the reporter to obtain from Mr Smith “proof of the allegation” in the form of a sworn affidavit, saying he cannot comment on a “loose statement”.[1]

“I can only comment if he provides me with proof..”

This was despite the fact that Mr Arendse referred to Maj Gen Jula as a “Bantustan stooge” in a press statement the reporter refers to.

3.11 The reporter asks him if he is denying that he is a “proxy” or denying that he launched a “character assassination.”

Mr Arendse insists he will not respond to the allegation “because he has no evidence.”

3.12 Hyman then reads him a sentence from Mr Arendse’s own press release describing certain police officers as  “Bantustan stooges” and invites him to comment.

Mr Arendse asks him what his “evidence” is, and Mr Hyman responds that the evidence is his own press statement.

When the reporter asks again, Mr Arendse accuses him of “changing the narrative”.

3.13 He repeatedly asks for a “sworn statement” from Mr Smith. When the reporter says he does not think that will be necessary, as he is conveying to him what Mr Smith said, Mr Arendse accuses him of trying to “bulldoze” him.

3.14 Mr Arendse in the conversation (or “interrogation’ as he calls it) is given ample time to comment on both Mr Smith’s comment that he is a “proxy” for Maj Gen Vearey, as well as on his own statement describing Maj Gen Jula as a “Bantustan stooge”.

3.15 This is routine journalism. A politician makes a statement at a news conference that is critical of, in this case a community activist, and the reporter calls the subject of criticism for a chance to comment.

Mr Smith may have been critical but he did not accuse Mr Arendse of a crime: there was no need, in my view, for him to repeat the statement “under oath”.

This was normal criticism in the rough and tumble of democratic debate and contestation.

3.16 Moreover, to aver as Mr Arendse does that the words “attack” and “character (or career) assassination” link him somehow to a crime is devoid of merit. The phrase “character/career assassination” or even “attack” are widely used phrases in robust public discourse. The former is accepted in most dictionary definitions as meaning to “harm” or “ruin” someone’s character, and there can be few reasonable readers who would interpret it otherwise.

3.17 Mr Arendse was given ample opportunity to comment on both points – that he was a proxy and that he had engaged in “character assassination” by describing Maj Gen Jula as a “Bantustan stooge”. Yet he obfuscated throughout the seven-minute conversation by asking for a “sworn statement” and then accusing the reporter of “changing the narrative” when he asked another question.

3.18 As for not reflecting his “comment”, there was little to reflect. The Sunday Times may have reflected his view that he wanted a “sworn statement” but it would have added little value.

3.19 In any event, the newspaper approached him for comment and he balked at self-created hurdles.

3.20 On the final complaint that the reporter was disingenuous by reporting on the court case involving Maj Gen Lincoln on the grounds that another reporter had told Mr Arendse this was not raised in the news briefing by Mr Smith, there is no foundation for this. The report does not attribute the information about Maj Gen Lincoln to the news briefing. It was clearly background information.

Also as the story was a feature, it quoted several sources and figures beyond the confines of the news briefing.

This is perfectly acceptable in such pieces of journalism.

Finding

The Sunday Times must apologize for describing Mr Arendse as Maj Gen Vearey’s “unofficial spokesman” without attributing it to a source.

This is a breach of section 1.1 , 1.2 and 1.3 of the Code. This is a Tier 2 offence. The apology should contain the word “apology” in the headline and be used on the same page as the original story with a logo of the Press Council and a link to this finding.

The rest of the complaint is dismissed.

Appeal

The Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven (7) 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].

Pippa Green

Press Ombudsman

May 29, 2020