Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi vs. City Press
SUMMARY
The headline to the column in dispute read, Siyahleba (in English – ‘Gossiping) – Moses, my mentor (published on 25 July 2021).
This ruling by Acting Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.
Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi complained that the:
- satirical piece had reinforced a defamatory remark (made on Facebook – which, he says, could ignite violence between Blacks and Indians) about “his own violent past”;
- author had been influenced by political and personal considerations;
- piece inaccurately and unfairly had referred to him as “chief”; and
- reportage had tarnished his dignity and reputation.
The weekly column in dispute said the “cantankerous chief from Ulundi” came in for some serious flak “for comments he had allegedly made about the recent unrest”. The piece ended with this remark: “Did Moses also teach him how to part the sea?” Next to this text, a picture of Buthelezi was published in his traditional attire, with the caption: “CHIEF Mangosuthu Buthelezi”.
Retief said the piece did reinforce the reference to “his own violent past”. The question was if it was in breach of the Press Code for having done so. He commented, “Of course not. If this office would decide otherwise, it would seriously stifle freedom of expression, affecting the media all over the country. Moreover, this office is not mandated to investigate if that was true or not.”
He distinguished between the possibility of violence (following the publication of a text) and the (deliberate) intention to incite violence – the Press Code prohibits the latter, but not the former. He opined that the text did not intend to incite violence – hence, he dismissed this part of the complaint.
He also dismissed the complaint that the editor-in-chief had for several years made defamatory remarks against him as there was no evidence to back up that allegation.
Lastly, Buthelezi said the editor had frequently expressed his antagonism towards him by using the word “chief”, which referred to his position as Inkosi (traditional leader) of the Buthelezi clan.
The Acting Ombud said he accepted that Buthelezi was offended and humiliated by the use of that term. The question was if the Press Code allowed a newspaper to (willingly) offend and humiliate a person. He noted that the piece was satire, and that mocking or teasing was the nature of that beast. As he could find no malice in the use of that word, he dismissed this part of the complaint.
THE RULING ITSELF
Complaint number: 9205
Lodged by: Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi – in his capacity as a member of the institution of Traditional Leadership (Ubukhosi), having served as Inkosi of the Buthelezi clan for almost seventy years
Date of satirical piece: 25 July 2021
Headline: Siyahleba (in English – ‘Gossiping) – Moses, my mentor
Page: 14
Print and online: Yes
Respondent: Rapule Tabane, political editor, City Press
- Complaint
- The gist of Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi’s complaint is that the satirical piece has reinforced a defamatory remark (made on Facebook – which, he says, could ignite violence between Blacks and Indians) about “his own violent past” .
- He also complains that the:
- author was influenced by political and personal considerations;
- piece inaccurately and unfairly referred to him as “chief”, and that that has tarnished his dignity and reputation.
1.3 He asks for a public apology both in print and online, and for the newspaper to be reprimanded and cautioned.
1.4 He also asks that this office should:
- specifically point out that the newspaper is a repeat offender; and
- convene a hearing to inquire into the repeated offences and ask City Press for an explanation and a plan to prevent recidivism.
- Sections of the Press Code complained about
Buthelezi cites the following relevant sections of the Press Code:
- 1.1: “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”;
- 2.1: “The media shall not allow commercial, political, personal or other non-professional considerations to influence reporting, and avoid conflicts of interest as well as practices that could lead readers to doubt the media’s independence and professionalism”;
- 3.3: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation…”; and
- 5.1: “The media shall avoid discriminatory or denigratory references to people’s … culture … and not refer to such status in a prejudicial or pejorative context – and shall refer to the above only where it is strictly relevant to the matter reported, and if it is in the public interest”.
To this, I add Section 7.2: “Comment or criticism is protected even if it is extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it is without malice, is on a matter of public interest, has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true, and is presented in a manner that it appears clearly to be comment.”
- The column
3.1 The weekly column in dispute said the “cantankerous chief from Ulundi” came in for some serious flak “for comments he had allegedly made about the recent unrest”. Some of these comments reminded Buthelezi of his own violent past, to which he responded by mentioning the peaceful men who moulded him – his uncle, Dr Pixley ka Isaka Seme, Inkosi Albert Luthuli, bishop Alpheus Zulu and the evangelist and pastor Nicholas Bhengu.
3.2 The piece ended with this remark: “Did Moses also teach him how to part the sea?”
3.3 Next to this text, a picture of Buthelezi was published in his traditional attire, with the caption: “CHIEF Mangosuthu Buthelezi”.
- The arguments
4.1 ‘Own violent past’; potential to spark violence
4.1.1 The background to this complaint is important. Buthelezi refers to a certain “Comrade M’Sirny Mngadi”, who posted a “malicious and manipulated” video clip on Facebook intended to create the impression that he supported the actions of certain community members in Phoenix, KwaZulu-Natal, who were attacking and killing Blacks in the aftermath of the recent civil unrest”.
4.1.2 He says the video clip included a brief excerpt from an interview he had held a week earlier (when the looting started and community members across KZN were mobilising to restore law and order in cooperation with law enforcement). In that interview, he applauded the community of Ulundi for restoring calm in its community; when he heard Phoenix had done the same, he applauded that community as well.
4.1.3 He says Mngadi’s post placed the excerpt where he was applauding the latter – but alongside it, there were images of race-based violence in Phoenix, with bodies lying in the street. This created the perception that he was applauding the violence, while the opposite was the case.
4.1.4 Buthelezi says this:
- ignited a torrent of abuse and hate speech against him, with some even hoping that he would die a “slow and painful death”; and
- had the potential to spark violence and retaliatory attacks between Blacks and Indians.
4.1.5 He says he therefore went on record to state that the Facebook post constituted fake news (http://www.ifp.org.za/in-condemnation-of-inflammatory-fake-news-on-facebook/), making it clear that he had “never advocated violence” and that he was committed to non-violence resistance; he says he also opened a criminal case against Mngadi “for incitement to violence”.
4.1.6 Buthelezi says the newspaper clearly understood the seriousness of the incident on which the column focused, as it was placed directly below and editorial piece that warned of “another inferno” looming due to rising tensions between Blacks and Indians in Phoenix.
| 4.1.7 Rapule Tabane says the newspaper does not dispute Buthelezi’s sequence of events. “What we were reflecting on [though] were the responses to Buthelezi’s utterances and not amplifying the individual known as Comrade M’Sirny Mngadi,” he submits. |
Analysis
4.1.8 I am bothered by the use of the word “allegedly” in the first sentence of the piece in dispute. This read, “The cantankerous chief from Ulundi came in for some serious flak this week for comments he had allegedly made about the recent unrest”. (Emphasis added.) Buthelezi was on record on the issue of civil unrest. Why then “allegedly”? Buthelezi has not uttered a single word to applaud or incite violence – in fact, he did quite the opposite.
4.1.9 However, I note that Buthelezi did not complain about the use of the word “allegedly” – and consequently, City Press did not address this matter either.
4.1.10 As Buthelezi has opened a criminal case against Mngadi’s post, I cannot comment on its content, and neither can I do so regarding the notion that it could spark violence between Blacks and Indians. That is for a court to decide, and not for this office to interfere with.
4.1.11 Leaving Mngadi’s post aside, then, the piece itself was about comments Buthelezi had allegedly made “about the recent unrest”. It referred to several “peaceful men” which, he said, had moulded him – including “the great evangelist, Pastor Nicholas Bhengu, [who] was also my mentor”. Then came the following, and last, sentence: “Did Moses also teach him how to part the sea?” This explained the headline (Moses, my mentor).
4.1.12 To me, it is clear that the author of the piece, having read Buthelezi’s comments on Mngadi’s post, said to him- or herself: “Ja, right.” On this score, Buthelezi is correct – the piece did reinforce the reference to “his own violent past”.
4.1.13 The question, therefore, is if the newspaper was in breach of the Press Code for having done so.
4.1.14 Of course not. If this office would decide otherwise, it would seriously stifle freedom of expression, affecting the media all over the country.
4.1.15 Moreover, this office is not mandated to investigate if that was true or not.
4.1.16 On the issue on the possibility of violence: A distinction must be made between the possibility of violence (following the publication of a text) and the (deliberate) intention to incite violence – the Press Code prohibits the latter, but not the former. I did not find any trace of any intention to incite violence – neither directly nor indirectly. Even if a court later decides Mngadi’s post was fake news, City Press would still be in the clear – it was not responsible for such “news”.
4.2 Political, personal considerations
4.2.1 Buthelezi submits that the editor-in-chief has for several years made defamatory remarks against him, adding that Makhanya’s “hatred” for him developed during the “ANC’s People’s War” of the eighties and early nineties – in which the journalist played an “active” part, targeting members of Inkatha (which he had founded, and which later became the IFP).
4.2.2 He quotes Makhanya as saying: “I was proud to be a part of [the People’s War]… I enjoyed the excitement of battle: the sight of a sea of burning shacks and desperate men running for dear life.” Also, while watching an injured Inkatha member being set alight, the editor wrote: “To me he was not a human being – he was an enemy who deserved what he got.”
4.2.3 He also refers to another editor-in-chief, Fred Khumalo, who has also “vilified” him.
Analysis
4.2.4 In another finding of mine to a complaint by Buthelezi on the same issue, I have said that I was thankful that the newspaper did not respond to that part of the complaint – everybody has a past, and nobody views the world from a tabula rasa point of view. That is still my view.
4.2.5 Besides, I have no evidence at my disposal which suggests that Makhanya has breached the Press Code regularly with regard to Buthelezi or the IFP – which means that I have no ground to believe that there was malice on the editor-in-chief’s part.
4.2.6 Buthelezi’s reference to Fred Khumalo is irrelevant to this specific matter.
4.3 ‘Chief’
4.3.1 Buthelezi says Makhanya has frequently expressed his antagonism towards him by using the word “chief”, which refers to his position as Inkosi (traditional leader) of the Buthelezi clan.
4.3.2 He submits that, apart from the fact that the matter on which the column commented had nothing to do with his position as traditional leader, the use of the word “chief” (referring to him) was deeply insulting.
4.3.3 He explains this by stating:
- During colonialism, the British government did not recognise the official structures of black nations. In seeking to strip influential positions of any authority and asserting dominance, they imposed new titles on amakhosi and kings – calling the former “chiefs” and the latter “paramount chiefs”;
- The apartheid regime continued this practice. However, even before democracy was achieved, the title “chief” was legislated “out of existence”. In this process, “chiefs” and “paramount chiefs” became “traditional leaders” and “traditional monarchs”; and
- The term “chief” is now considered to be derogatory “and is used with the intention to belittle or deride, suggesting that a traditional leader has no real authority or position.
4.3.4 Buthelezi argues that, even though satirical pieces tend to mock their subject, there is a line that should never be crossed. For instance, he explains, it would be unacceptable even for a satirical piece to refer to a member of the LGBTQ+ community as “that irate fag from Durban”, or to refer to a Muslim as “that morose towel-head from Wynberg”, or to any black person as “that grumpy kaffir from Soweto”.
4.3.5 He submits that the use of the word “chief” is as unacceptable as the above.
4.3.6 He concludes, “It is denigratory and nothing less than an expression of self-hate under a democratic regime. I cannot fathom why City Press can again and again drag us back to the past where traditional leaders are insulted for no good reason, except [for] ‘a bit of a laugh’. I can assure you, no one with an inkling of self-respect is laughing.”
4.3.7 Tabane says the newspaper differs about the derogatory nature of the appellation. He says the:
4.3.9 The political editor says it may well be, as Buthelezi points out, that in the post-apartheid dispensation the official title is traditional leader and the preferred prefix is Inkosi or Kgosi. “However, many traditional leaders have no objection to the title and still refer to themselves as chiefs, even in their public pronouncements,” he argues. 4.3.10 He continues, “In our regular coverage of the nation’s affairs we refer to Buthelezi by official title of IFP President Emeritus; former IFP leader or member of parliament. Yes, we used the term ‘chief’ in the satirical column Siyahleba, but that is the nature of that space. The nature of satire is to tease the powerful, something we and other newspapers do to leaders of all political parties and other senior members of society.” |
4.3.11 Buthelezi replies:
- It is ironic that the newspaper appeals to the authority of British dictionaries to define the generic word “chief”, as though this has greater authority than the specific application of this title to black South African traditional leaders;
- He has always challenged the reference to him as chief. “It is beyond absurd that City Press would claim that I have never challenged such a serious matter before”;
- “Chieftainship” is not the same as a “chief” – Temkin does not refer to him as a “chief”;
- The title was related to his position of Chief Minister (which was created by the apartheid regime as part of the homelands policy), not his position as an Inkosi. “I am on public record having spoken against the homelands policy, both then and now. In fact, it is on record that the only reason I agreed to accept serving in that position was an instruction to me by my ANC leadership, Mr Tambo and Inkosi Luthuli”;
- Given his role of seven decades as a traditional leader, surely he has the authority to state that the overwhelming majority of traditional leaders resent and feel humiliated by the use of this colonial title; and
- Knowingly humiliating traditional leaders cannot be called “robust engagement in our democratic society”. These are the actions of a playground bully.
4.3.12 He concludes: “This matter had nothing to do my position as an Inkosi. Referring to me as a ‘chief’ in this instance was absolutely gratuitous and intended to remind me that they can do just as they please to insult me.”
Analysis
4.3.13 Let me start with a personal example from the old South Africa. I used to argue that the system of apartheid humiliated, dehumanised and denigrated people of colour. Most of my friends replied: “But the intention of apartheid is good – the government does not mean to humiliate, dehumanise and denigrate anyone”. My response was always the same: “If people (of colour) say they are humiliated, they are – whatever the intention may be. It is not for you to say they are not humiliated. You should listen to them!”
4.3.14 The same goes for the use of the word “chief” when referring to Buthelezi. He says this offends and humiliates him – it is not for the newspaper to say that that is not true and that that is not its intention.
4.3.15 The question, then, is if the Press Code allows a newspaper to (willingly) offend and humiliate a person. This is what the relevant section (7.2) of the Code says: “Comment or criticism is protected even if it is extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it is without malice, is on a matter of public interest, has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true, and is presented in a manner that it appears clearly to be comment.”
4.3.16 These are strong words – all of which is intended to protect freedom of expression. I accept that Buthelezi feels insulted by the use of the word “chief”, but at the same time I need to take the nature of the piece into consideration – it was satire. Mocking or teasing is the nature of that beast. I do not believe that City Press has crossed the “line” to which Buthelezi refers.
4.3.17 To put it differently, I do not have enough ground to find malice on the part of the newspaper. Teasing, yes; poking fun, yes; but malice? That is one bridge too far for me.
4.3.18 Let this be said, though: Whenever the newspaper refers to Buthelezi again as a “chief”, it must know that it is offending and humiliating him. I would therefore strongly advise against the use of that word – but, in the end, that is the editor’s decision, not mine.
4.4 Dignity, reputation
Given all of the above, it follows that I cannot uphold this part of the complaint.
- 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
Acting Press Ombud