Decision to adjudicate – Hanna vs. News24.com

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Exodus: Uncovering sexual crimes and missing millions at a KZN ‘cult’; and a video, headlined, Exodus – uncovering a cult in KwaZulu-Natal (published on 19 September 2020).

This ruling by Acting Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

 

Hanna Pretorius, the deputy principal of Domino Servite School, complained about the content of News24’s “Exodus video” and subsequent podcasts that dealt with alleged wrongdoings at KwaSizabantu Mission. The issue was about allegations that people were being held captive at the Mission hospital, that the mission had become a cult, and about inhumane behaviour at the institution.

In her initial complaint, she said that:

• she had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond – neither prior, nor after publication, despite having been accused of wrongdoing;
• the testimony of her daughter, Louise (taken from KwaSizabantu’s website), had been redacted and edited in such a way that her opinion had been distorted – moreover, she had never been asked for permission to use her voice in the video or to ask whether the allegations were true;
• she had been treated unfairly when approached by a journalist prior to publication – also, that she was wrongly accused of wrongdoings; and
• the Domino Servite School was unfairly and untruthfully portrayed.

The Acting Public Advocate (PA) deferred this complaint until after the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL) had completed its hearings into allegations regarding matters relating to this issue.

Pretorius appealed this decision, arguing that the subject matter of her complaint was not pending in any court of law.

At that stage, Retief was not in a position to adjudicate the merits of the complaint – he merely had to decide whether the PA was correct in his ruling. He partly agreed/disagreed. The Acting Ombud identified three issues that were not likely to be investigated by the CRL. These were whether News24:

• should have given Louise Pretorius a right of reply;
• had redacted and edited her testimony in such a way that her opinion was distorted; and
• should have asked her for permission to use her voice in the video.

He therefore decided to proceed with making a ruling on those issues – if there was no application for leave to appeal his decision.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

Complaint number: 8388

Date of article: 19 September 2020

Headline: Exodus

1. Complaint                                            

1.1 Ms Hanna Pretorius, the deputy principal of Domino Servite School, complains about the content of News24’s “Exodus video” and subsequent podcasts that dealt with alleged wrongdoings at KwaSizabantu Mission.

1.2 In her initial complaint, she says that:

1. she has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond – neither prior, nor after publication, despite having been accused of wrongdoing;
2. the testimony of her daughter, Louise, was redacted and edited in such a way that her opinion was distorted – moreover, she was never asked for permission to use her voice in the video or to ask whether the allegations were true;
3. her mother, who has a hearing problem, was treated unfairly when approached by a journalist prior to publication – also, that she was wrongly accused of wrongdoings; and
4. the Domino Servite School was unfairly and untruthfully portrayed.

1.3 She concludes that her family was suffering “greatly” as a result of this reportage.

1.4 The acting Public Advocate deferred this complaint until after the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL) has completed its hearings into allegations regarding matters related to this issue.

1.5 Motivating her appeal against this decision Pretorius states, “In summary, my complaint is very specific: News24 has published a false report that my daughter was held captive in the Kwasizabantu Mission hospital, and in their report implicated that we as a family were complicit in this. News24 never contacted my daughter, or anyone in our family, to find out whether this was true or not. By that they contravened the Press Code. The complaint is very specific, it relates specifically to my family and me…  I reiterate, the issue complained about is not among those that the CRL is adjudicating.”

2. The subject material

The issue was about allegations that people were being held captive at the KwaSizabantu Mission hospital, that the mission had become a cult, and about inhumane behaviour at the institution.

3. Parameters of this finding

3.1 It should be clear to all parties concerned that this adjudication is not, and cannot be, about the merits of the complaint. At this stage, I merely need to decide whether the acting Public Advocate’s decision to defer the complaint until the CRL has completed its hearings is correct or not.

3.2 For that reason, I am only dealing with arguments that pertain to the latter.

4. Decision to defer

4.1 The acting Public Advocate deferred the request for adjudication until such time as the CRL has finalised its hearings on allegations regarding the KwaSizabantu Mission.

4.2 He motivated his decision by citing Section 1.7.3 of the Press Council’s Complaints Procedures which states: “Where at any stage of the proceedings it emerges that proceedings before a court are pending on a matter related to the material complained about, the Public Advocate, the Ombud or the Chair of Appeals, depending on status of the complaint at that stage, shall forthwith stop the proceedings and set aside the acceptance of the complaint by the Public Advocate, unless it is shown that the issue complained about is not among those that the court is adjudicating.”

4.3 He agreed with News24’s internal ombud, Prof George Claassen, who argued, “The CRL hearings is about what happened at KwaSizabantu and that may include what the media reported and are still reporting, whether the reporting is false or not. The CRL hearings have been conducted because of what appeared in the media. The hearings have already heard from witnesses that the reporting of News24 was indeed correct regarding their stories published. The complainant is ignoring the fact that the CRL hearings are basically grounded in a test of whether the reporting of News24 and other media, correlate with what witnesses are saying. And indeed they do, as testified by various witnesses. To now say our reporting is ‘false’, and that the Press Ombud must hear this case because of this, is interfering with the CRL hearings, an official chapter 9 investigation.”

5. Appeal

5.1 Pretorius appeals this decision, arguing that the subject matter of her complaint is not pending in any court of law.

5.2 She inter alia argues that Section 1.7.3 of the Complains Procedures clearly states that the office of the Press Ombud can adjudicate a complaint which relates to a court case – if “it is shown that the issue complained about is not among those that the court is adjudicating.”

5.3 In summary, she says her complaint is very specific: “News24 has published a false report that my daughter was held captive in the Kwasizabantu Mission hospital, and in their report implicated that we as a family were complicit in this. News24 never contacted my daughter, or anyone in our family, to find out whether this was true or not. By that they contravened the Press Code. The complaint is very specific, it relates specifically to my family and me, the complainants. I reiterate, the issue complained about is not among those that the CRL is adjudicating.”

5.4 She adds that neither the acting Public Advocate, nor News24 presented any evidence that the substance of her complaint was before the CRL for adjudication. At best they alleged that the proceedings before the CRL relate to the material complained about, she argues.

6. Analysis

6.1 ‘Court’

6.1.1 Section 1.7.3 of the Press Council’s Complaints Procedures only mentions “a court” – it does not specifically refer to any other quasi-judicial tribunal or forum. The question, therefore, is if this section is applicable in this case (which is before the CRL, which is not a court).

6.1.2 I believe it is reasonable to interpret the word “court” as including a quasi-judicial tribunal or forum, as Section 3.3 of the Press Code, that deals with dignity and reputation, does exactly that (in Sub-section 3.3.3).

6.2 The truth of the allegations

6.2.1 The central issues in contention are the allegations that Louise Pretorius was a self-declared Satanist and that she was held captive in the KwaSizabantu Mission hospital.

6.2.2 Pretorius asks for evidence that the CRL is going to investigate the matter she complains about. I do not have such “evidence” – but then, I do not need any. I am convinced it is reasonable to believe that the CRL will, or most probably will, deal with the veracity of these allegations. Interfering in the arguments about the merits of these allegations certainly falls outside the Press Council’s mandate. The risk is simply too great for the office to allow such meddling.

6.2.3 It needs to be said, though, that if the CRL does not deal with these allegations, the matter can be brought back to the Press Council. Until such time, then, the only reasonable way to go is to defer the matter. As far as this goes, the acting Public Advocate’s decision was the correct one – in fact, the only one that he could have taken.

6.3 Right of reply: Hanna Pretorius

6.3.1 In her initial correspondence, Pretorius complains that News24 did not afford her a right of reply prior to publication. Later, though, she states that she wants to reduce the complaint to her daughter having not been asked to comment.

6.3.2 This means that I am not at liberty to decide that this specific matter should be dealt with by this office. It also means that, if the Press Council does finally deal with the complaint, the Hanna Pretorius part of it should be ignored.

6.4 Louise Pretorius

6.4.1 This leaves me with some issues relating to Louise Pretorius – not the substance of the allegations levelled against her, but matters of a journalistic nature which, I believe, that the CRL is not likely to pursue (and which, therefore, should not be deferred by this office until after its hearings have been concluded).

6.4.2 These are the questions if the CRL is likely to investigate the question whether News24:

1.   should have given Louise Pretorius a right of reply;
2.   has redacted and edited her testimony in such a way that her opinion was distorted; and
3.   should have asked her for permission to use her voice in the video.

6.5 As I do not foresee that the CRL is likely to investigate these (journalistic) matters, I do believe that these parts of the complaint can be adjudicated by the Press Council – prior to the outcome of the CRL’s hearings.

7. Decision

7.1 The above does not mean I have decided that Pretorius is right – I am saying, though, I believe that she has the right to be heard on the issues documented under Section 6.4.2 (as those issues are journalistic of nature and not likely to influence CRL’s investigation).

1. Based on the arguments above, I am:
   1. upholding the acting Public Advocate’s decision to defer the complaint about the merits of the allegations until after the CRL has finalised its hearings;
   2. overturning his decision to defer the whole complaint; and
   3. limiting this to matters raised under Point 6.4.2 above.

8. The way forward

8.1 As both parties can still appeal my decision, this office shall only be able to adjudicate the complaint if no party appeals my decision, or if an appeal against it is dismissed.

1. If that transpires, to expedite and simplify matters I suggest that News24 responds anew to the redacted complaint (again, see Point 6.4.2 above), after which Pretorius should be given an opportunity to respond.

9. 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 – Acting Press Ombud