Appeal Decision: Mohlala Mamodupi vs Sunday World

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Details of Mamodupe’s split from hubby come to light  (published on 24 November 2020).

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.

Mamodupi Mohlala appealed against the ruling of the Acting Assistant Press Ombud, dated 8 June 2020. The story was about the breaking up of the marriage between her and her husband. Reference was also made to the husband’s tax problems, and that SARS’s documents had been served at the erstwhile common house, which both say they had evacuated. It appeared that, initially, the story was going to be about the husband’s tax affairs.

Mohlala inter alia complained that:

• it was derogatory to state that her marriage had been “decommissioned”;
• she was had not been given adequate time to respond;
• the mentioning of her name and the publication of her wedding picture were unfair and misleading; and
• her views were misrepresented.

The Ombud dismissed these complaints and upheld some minor ones. She then applied for leave to appeal.

Judge Ngoepe said the story did not blame Mohlahla for the break-up of the marriage; neither did her husband. He agreed with the editor that the story was initially about her husband’s tax affairs – but the thrust changed when he revealed the separation. As the wedding attracted public attention, it was logical that the break-up would likewise be a matter of public interest, the judge remarked.

He added that the statement that the marriage was “decommissioned” was “entirely neutral” and there was no sting in the word.

The application was dismissed.

THE RULING ITSELF

BEFORE THE APPEL PANEL OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN PRESS COUNCIL

In the matter between

MOHLALA MAMODUPI                                                                                      APPLICANT

AND

1. This is an application by Ms Mamodupi Mohlala (“applicant”). It is an appeal against the Ruling of the Acting Assistant Press Ombud (“Ombud”) dated 8 June 2020. The Ruling was on a complaint that had been lodged by the applicant against Sunday World (“respondent”) in respect of an article published by the respondent on 24 November 2019. The headline read: “Details of Mamodupe’s split from hubby come to light”. The content of the story was about the breaking up of the marriage between the applicant and her husband. It stated that they were no longer living together. The word used, to which the applicant look umbrage, was that the marriage had been “decommissioned”. Reference was also made to the husband’s tax problems, and that SARS’s documents had been served at the erstwhile common house, which both say they have evacuated. It appears that initially the story was going to be about the husband’s tax affairs. It was during his interview with the journalist that the issue of separation came to light. In the words of the editor of the respondent, at that point the thrust of the story shifted from tax to the issue of separation. There was a photograph of the couple on their wedding day, with the applicant in her wedding dress.
2. The applicant’s main complaints were correctly summarized by the Ombud, namely: that she was not given adequate time to respond; that the mentioning of her name and the publication of her wedding picture were unfair and misleading and that there was misrepresentation during the interview. She also objected against the statement that her marriage had been “decommissioned”. There were other minor complaints, such as the misspelling of her name. The applicant’s husband said he did not receive SARS’s letter, which had been sent to the common house, as he had left a long time before. The applicant was to later complain that the insinuation was that she failed to give him the letter, yet she too had left the place. The respondent disputed the complaint, except to accept that the applicant’s name was misspelt, and offered to correct.
3. In his Ruling, the Ombud dismissed most of the complaints but held that in misspelling applicant’s name, and wrongly describing her as former chairperson of the National Consumer commission whereas she was just a commissioner, respondent breached clause 1.1 of the code. He also found that by failing to mention that the applicant did not live at the place where SARS’s letter was delivered, clauses 1.1 and 1.2 were breached. Sanction was imposed.
4. The applicant seeks leave to appeal the dismissal of the main complaints referred to above. The application is opposed by the respondent. I must now determine whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
   1. Regarding the complaint that she was not given the opportunity to respond: I am afraid I do not agree with the applicant. I need not repeat what the Ombud has said except to add that the story did not blame the applicant for the break-up of the marriage; neither did her husband. Had her husband blamed her, the situation could have been different. As the editor says, the story was initially about the husband’s tax affairs but the thrust changed when he revealed the separation. Upon realising that, the respondent turned to the applicant for her comments. The applicant’s wedding attracted public attention, and correctly so as the applicant was a well-known public figure. It was logical that the break-up would likewise be a matter of public interest. That is the price such figures pay; you take the good with the bad. Depending on your station in society, the mere fact that you have a bout of influenza may be national new.
   2. The complaint about the statement that the marriage was “decommissioned” cannot stand either. There is simply no sting in the use of that word; it is entirely neutral. It cannot acquire a negative connotation simply because it is used in relation to a woman. In any case the word cannot attach to a woman alone or be said to be singularly directed at her alone as she cannot be in the marriage alone; surely the man would also be implicated! I therefore do not see how the issue of gender, in particular the treatment of women, comes in.
5. I am satisfied that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success on appeal; the application therefore fails.

Dated this 12^th day of August 2020

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel