Department of Treasury, Free State vs Sunday World

SUMMARY

The headlines to the stories in dispute read, Free State treasury head probed over irregular appointment; and, Free State treasury head Sesing writes scathing letter to PSC (published on 28 May 2023 and 25 June 2023 respectively).

This ruling by Deputy Press Tyrone August was based on the Press Code that became effective on 30 September 2022.

 

The first article reported that the Public Service Commission (PSC) was investigating Free State head of treasury Masechaba Sesing for alleged corrupt practices in connection with the recruitment of a senior employee in her department.

This, the complainant said, was not true, accurate or fair, and was defamatory.

The issue revolved around the meaning of the word “corrupt”. Unlike the complainant, August opted for a more general interpretation of that word. He argued that, while it was true that the specific words “alleged corrupt practices” did not appear in the PSC letter to the Free State Premier, it did refer to alleged “irregularity” and alleged “illegal interference” as well as to the allegation that Sesing “illegally intercepted a recruitment process”.

August opined that “such allegations can indeed be deemed to fall into the category of activities that can be described as corrupt”. He dismissed this part of the complaint on that basis.

He also dismissed the complaint that Sesing was not given a right of reply as:

• the newspaper did send an email to the communications unit of the relevant government department; and
• it was reasonable for the newspaper to expect that the response from the department would include input from her insofar as any questions related to her.

The second story referred to Sesing as “controversial”. The complaint was that this description had no substance to it and that it was deemed to be untrue, inaccurate, unfair malicious and defamatory. Moreover, the complainant denied that she ever claimed that she should not be subjected to an investigation by the PSC.

August inter alia argued that the article did not provide any evidence to suggest that Sesing had previously been the subject of such a debate or dispute in the media or in the public domain more generally. Therefore, he upheld this part of the complaint.

Again, the complaint was that the newspaper did not obtain comment from her. As the article did not include responses relating to Sesing, this part of the complaint was upheld as well.

Sunday World was required to publish an apology to the complainant for the relevant breaches of the Press Code.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

Dates of publication: 28 May 2023 and 25 June 2023

Headlines:

Free State treasury head probed over irregular appointment

Free State treasury head Sesing writes scathing letter to PSC

Author: Bongani Mdakane

Particulars

This finding is based on a written complaint by Mr Sipho Mhlambi on behalf of the Department of Treasury, Free State, and includes several supporting documents; a written response by Mr Ngwako Malatji, Acting Editor of Sunday World, with an annexure; and a further written response by Mr Mhlambi on behalf of the Department of Treasury, Free State, along with various supporting documents. Mr Mhlambi also subsequently responded in writing to an enquiry about questions emailed to his department by the newspaper on May 25.

Complaint

The complainant submits that the two articles in question transgress Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.8 of the Press Code:

“1. 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 summarisation; …

“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; …”

In its further written response, the complainant adds that the two articles also transgress Clause 1.3 of the Press Code:

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

1. Summary of articles

Article 1: Free State treasury head probed over irregular appointment

1.1. The article reports that the Public Service Commission (PSC) is investigating Free State head of treasury Masechaba Sesing for alleged corrupt practices in connection with the recruitment of a senior employee in her department.

1.1.1. According to the article, she is facing a charge of meddling in recruitment processes and allegedly colluded with the department’s chief financial officer (CFO), Adri Botes, in the appointment of a senior official “earmarked to oversee fiscal policy”.

1.2. The PSC wrote to Free State premier Mxolisi Dukwana in April 2023 after it received a complaint from a whistleblower about the alleged meddling and flagged Sesing’s alleged involvement in flouting recruitment processes.

1.2.1. The letter from the PSC’s Dr Henk Boshoff states that Sesing allegedly colluded with Botes on who should be appointed to the position of director of fiscal policy.

1.2.2. According to Boshoff’s letter, Botes informed Sesing that the selection panel had recommended a candidate that the HOD “did not prefer”. The letter further states that Sesing immediately contacted two panel members and instructed them to reconvene and reconsider their decision.

1.2.3. The panel subsequently changed its initial recommendation and reportedly “scrapped the process that had already been finalised”.

1.3. The article goes on to report that Boshoff’s letter to Dukwana states that Botes was “buying favours” from Sesing because the CFO allegedly did not possess the required academic qualifications for her position.

1.3.1. Boshoff informed Dukwana that the PSC would investigate the matter and that Advocate MC Mokoena would investigate the complaint.

1.3.2. The PSC requested the provincial government to provide a copy of the advertisement for the position of director of fiscal policy as well as the treasury department’s recruitment policy, a list of all the applicants and the minutes outlining the shortlisting process.

1.4. Botes reportedly would not comment on the matter.

1.4.1. Free State treasury spokesperson Andrew Visagie said that the PSC enquiry was deemed to be allegations and that the Premier’s office would attend to the matter.

Article 2: Free State treasury head Sesing writes scathing letter to PSC

1.5. According to the article, Sesing wrote a scathing letter to PSC chairperson Dr Somadoda Fikeni and requested him to intervene in the investigation into her by the Commission’s Free State office.

1.5.1. She reportedly lodged a complaint with Fikeni about the PSC provincial office and claimed that she should not be subjected to investigations by the Commission.

1.5.2. In a letter to Fikeni on May 25, Sesing reportedly argued that the PSC was “not an organ of state” and that it does not have the jurisdiction to investigate “the matters that they have intimated they would investigate”.

1.6. The provincial department’s lawyers, Rampai Attorneys, wrote a letter to the provincial PSC on June 12, in which they state that it was not going to be possible for the department’s employees to attend the investigative interviews scheduled for the following day.

1.6.1. Rampai Attorneys reportedly said in a letter that they had received instructions from the department to represent them, but claimed that they only received the letter on June 12 – a day before the department’s officials were due to appear before the PSC.

1.6.2. Their letter states that they require “sufficient time” to peruse any documents that relate to the matter and consult with their client in order to provide it with” sound and pertinent advice”.

1.6.3. Treasury spokesperson Tshidiso Mokokoane reportedly contradicted the letter sent by Rampai Attorneys. According to him, the PSC letter which invites certain departmental officials to interviews was dated June 2, and was received on June 6 with a request to have the department’s officials appear before the PSC on June 7.

1.6.4. Mokokoane said that this was short notice and that another date of June 13 was then given. Legal advice was also sought from the chief state law adviser and the state attorney’s office on certain aspects of the investigations which the department disputed.

1.6.5. Mokokoane reaffirmed the department’s intention to cooperate with the investigation “in every way possible, for as long as it was conducted within the parameters of law”.

2. Arguments

Department of Treasury, Free State

2.1. The complainant argues that Article 1 is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code in that it inaccurately states that the PSC is investigating Sesing for “alleged corrupt practices” regarding the recruitment of a senior employee in her department.

2.1.1. It submits that nowhere in the PSC letter is there any reference to corrupt practices and that it does not contain a hint of any allegation of corrupt practices.

2.1.2. It goes on to claim that such an allegation is not supported anywhere in the article either and is therefore untrue, inaccurate and unfair. Furthermore, it contends, such an allegation is slanderous.

2.1.3. While it notes that the Press Council is not the appropriate forum to respond to the PSC’s “allegations”, it dismisses these as without foundation and describes the article as reprehensible.

2.2. With regard to the claim in the PSC’s letter that Sesing allegedly colluded with Botes on who should be appointed, the complainant submits that the newspaper failed to solicit comment from Sesing and, in so doing, was in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

2.2.1. The complainant submits that the failure to contact Sesing (“the affected party”) for comment was in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code as well.

2.3. With regard to Article 2, the complainant takes issue with the reference to Sesing as “controversial”. It contends that the article does not provide any basis to substantiate such a reference and therefore deems it to be malicious and slanderous.

2.3.1. It regards this reference as untrue, inaccurate and unfair and, accordingly, in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.

2.3.2. Furthermore, it contends that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.2 and 1.8 of the Press Code in view of the fact that it did not obtain comment from Sesing.

2.4. The complainant further denies that Sesing ever claimed that she should not be subjected to an investigation by the PSC. It argues that this is not accurate, fair or true, which is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2.

2.4.1. It submits that the newspaper failed to obtain comment from Sesing on this aspect, too, which is in breach of Clause 1.8.

2.4.2. In support of its submission, the complainant provides an annexure of a letter from Sesing to Fikeni dated 25 May 2023.

2.5. The complainant further claims that Article 2 is in breach of Clause 1.2 in that it deliberately ignored the comments provided to the newspaper and was therefore not balanced.

2.6. In conclusion, the complainant urges the Press Ombuds office to attend to its complaint urgently in light of the damage caused by the two articles.

Sunday World

2.7. In response to the complaints about Article 1, the respondent replies that it sent questions via email to the Free State communications unit for the attention of Mokokoane and Sesing on 25 May 2023.

2.7.1. It provides the email details of the Treasury’s communication unit as displayed on the department’s website. However, it notes, the department failed to respond to the questions in the email.

2.7.2. It contends that it is therefore both untrue and incorrect to suggest that the newspaper failed to contact the complainant for comment.

2.7.3. In addition, the newspaper says it also contacted Visagie, whose comment is quoted in its report.

2.8. The respondent further submits that Botes refused to comment after she was contacted by phone, and instead went to Mhlambi’s office and informed him that a Sunday World reporter was on the line.

2.8.1. The newspaper states that Mhlambi could be heard saying that the reporter should send an email. Botes then requested the newspaper to put its questions in an email and send these to her.

2.8.2. It notes that Botes would not comment on the matter.

2.9. With regard to the reference in its article to “corrupt practices”, the respondent states that “corruption is classified as fraud, dishonesty, and malpractice, among others”.

2.9.1. As such, it believes, there was nothing wrong in using the word “corrupt” in its report, given the context that Sesing and Botes allegedly meddled in the recruitment processes when the department was conducting interviews for a senior management position.

2.9.2. It therefore submits that there was no violation of the Press Code in this regard.

2.10. With regard to Article 2, the respondent contends that its report covered “all angles”, and that it provided the department with the opportunity to respond. It says that Mokokoane took up this offer.

2.10.1. It goes on to argue that there was nothing wrong with mentioning that Sesing was a controversial person, “based on her alleged influence and meddling in the department’s recruitment processes”. Moreover, it states, the PSC confirmed that the allegations were being investigated.

2.11. Regarding Sesing’s letter to Fikeni, the respondent submits that she clearly states in the letter that she holds the view that the PSC does not have the jurisdiction to investigate the allegations against her.

2.11.1. It was therefore reasonable for the newspaper to publish that she claimed that she should not be subjected to the Commission’s investigation.

2.11.2. In light of the above, it argues, its report is true, correct and fair.

2.12. In conclusion, the respondent submits that the department’s complaint should be dismissed as it cannot prove its case.

2.12.1. It adds that the newspaper reported on the matter in the public interest.

Department of Treasury, Free State

2.13. In reply to the respondent, the complainant reiterates its claim that the reference in Article 1 to “corrupt practices” being the subject of an PSC investigation is inaccurate and that it does not appear anywhere in the Commission’s letter to the Free State Premier. Instead, it submits, such an allegation originates from the respondent.

2.13.1. It suggests that this indicates the respondent’s “partiality in this regard” and that the report is not balanced, which is in breach of the Press Code.

2.14. The complainant adds that it replied on June 15 to questions from the newspaper on the understanding that a follow-up article would be published on June 18. However, it says, the department was taken by surprise when Article 2 was published on June 25 – without any comment solicited or obtained from the department.

2.14.1. It contends that this is in breach of the Press Code and claims that the respondent was not prepared to publish the department’s version, hence its decision not to publish a follow-up article on June 18 despite an undertaking to do so.

2.14.2. It further argues that the failure to solicit and obtain comment from Sesing for Article 2 indicates the respondent’s partiality and drags Sesing’s name through the mud. It adds that the newspaper did not publish the department’s comments “at any stage”.

2.14.3. In light of the above, it asserts that the respondent is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.8 of the Press Code.

2.15. The complainant rejects the respondent’s definition of “corruption” as limited and says that the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act refers to “any person who gives or accepts or offers to give or accept any gratification amounting to an unauthorised or improper inducement to act or not act in a particular manner”.

2.15.1. It argues that an alternative definition of corruption as “a form or dishonesty or criminal offence which is undertaken by a person or organisation, which is entrusted in a position of authority, in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for personal gain” is closer to the respondent’s definition (complainant’s emphases).

2.15.2. However, it suggests that there is no allegation relating to any of these distinctive attributes in the PSC letter to Dukwana and that none of these characteristics can be inferred either from the PSC letter.

2.15.3. It adds that the respondent’s own definition of corruption does not help its case as the PSC letter cannot be used to deduce any dishonesty, fraud or malpractice.

2.15.4. It further states that the allegation on which the PSC investigation is based is “not detailed” in that the letter does not provide any information on what Sesing’s alleged instruction to Botes encompassed.

2.15.5. It argues that the PSC investigation may well reveal that there was no such instruction or, if there was indeed such an instruction, that it was lawful and not connected in any way to dishonesty, fraud or malpractice.

2.15.6. The complainant again questions the respondent’s impartiality and contends that the newspaper “even made the allegation to be worse than what it was”. In doing so, it believes, the respondent was in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.8.

2.16. Regarding Article 2, the complainant denies that it was given an opportunity to provide comment. It notes that it replied to questions for an article that it expected to be published on June 18, but did not receive any questions for the June 25 article.

2.16.1. It subsequently contacted the respondent after Article 2 was published and noted its reservations about the June 25 report (a copy of this letter is included). It expressed the view that the newspaper’s articles on the PSC investigation were “imbalanced” and “clearly partial”.

2.16.2. The complainant claims that the respondent was “frugal” with the information it published in the two articles and that it was selective as well in the way it published its response to the newspaper’s questions.

2.16.3. It repeats its view that the newspaper contravened the Press Code by not publishing the department’s comments.

2.17. On the use of the word “controversial” to refer to Sesing, the complainant contends that the newspaper merely “says” she is controversial; it does not define what it means by its use of this word, nor does it define in which respect she is controversial.

2.17.1. It believes that labelling Sesing in this way can only exacerbate the negative perception that the newspaper created about her.

2.17.2. It adds that the contents of the PSC letter do not suggest the word “controversy”; rather, it is an indication of the respondent’s bias.

2.18. The complainant further denies that Sesing’s letter to Fikeni argued that the PSC could not investigate her on the grounds that the Commission is not an organ of state, but was instead based on the rules that govern PSC investigations. (A copy of these rules is included in the complainant’s response.)

2.18.1. The complainant also contends that Sesing’s letter was not antagonistic, but cordial.

2.18.2. It submits that Article 2 is therefore not true, fair or accurate, and suggests that it is an unjustifiable attempt to twist the contents of Sesing’s letter to Fikeni.

2.19. In conclusion, the complainant says that the articles are biased (it cites the references to “alleged corrupt practices” in Article 1 and to “controversial” in Article 2 in support of this argument).

2.19.1. It also argues that the respondent withheld vital comments by not including these in the article that it expected to be published on June 18.

2.19.2. Furthermore, it suggests that the respondent distorted the contents of Sesing’s letter to Fikeni.

2.19.3. It submits that the articles are therefore not balanced and caused undue harm to Sesing’s character and reputation.

2.20. In view of the above, the complainant argues that the respondent is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.8 of the Press Code.

2.20.1. It requests the publication of an apology by the respondent as well as any other relief determined by the Press Ombuds office, bearing in mind the magnitude of the harm caused by the articles.

3. Analysis

Article 1: Free State treasury head probed over irregular appointment

3.1. The first complaint revolves around the meaning of the word “corrupt” in Article 1. The complainant submits that the report is in breach of Clause 1.1 as it inaccurately states that the PSC letter refers to an investigation into alleged corrupt practices whereas it does not refer to any such allegation.

3.1.1. While it is true that the specific words “alleged corrupt practices” do not appear in the PSC letter to the Free State Premier, it does refer to “allegedly irregularity” and “alleged illegal interference” as well as to the allegation that Sesing “illegally intercepted a recruitment process”.

3.1.2. Such allegations can indeed be deemed to fall into the category of activities that can be described as corrupt.

3.1.3. According to the Collins English Dictionary: Millennium Edition, the word “corrupt” refers to “lacking in integrity” and “open to or involving … dishonest practices”. The New Collins Thesaurus also includes the words “dishonest” and “unethical” among the alternatives for the word “corrupt”.

3.1.4. These descriptions are in line with the respondent’s claim in its response that the use of the word “corrupt” in its article refers, among other things, to “dishonesty” and “malpractice”.

3.1.5. The complainant relies on more narrow definitions of corruption, including that featured in the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act. However, these do not preclude more general explanations of what corruption is or encompasses.

3.1.6. For instance, the South African non-profit organisation Corruption Watch acknowledges the definition in the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, but makes the point that there are broader definitions of “corruption” as well.[1]

3.1.7. It refers to those in the Cambridge Dictionary (“illegal, bad, or dishonest behaviour, especially by people in positions of power”) and the Oxford Dictionary (“dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power”) as examples.

3.1.8. Corruption Watch also refers to the definition of corruption in the Business Dictionary: “Wrongdoing on the part of an authority or powerful party through means that are illegitimate, immoral, or incompatible with ethical standards. Corruption often results from patronage …”

3.1.9. The use of the word “corrupt” is therefore justifiable in the context of the allegations in Article 1 and is, accordingly, not in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.

3.2. The complainant further claims that an allegation of corrupt practices is not supported anywhere in Article 1.

3.2.1. Such a claim is difficult to follow. The article is based on the PSC’s letter to Dukwana: this letter specifically contains an allegation from a whistleblower that Sesing and Botes interfered in the process to appoint a senior official in the provincial finance department and that they colluded to ensure a different outcome from the original decision.

3.2.2. The article makes a clear and direct reference to these details to support and elaborate on the reference to alleged corrupt practices (see points 1.2.1 to 1.2.3 above).

3.3. The complainant goes on to state that the newspaper failed to seek comment from Sesing and, as such, is in breach of Clauses 1.2 and 1.8 of the Press Code.

3.3.1. However, the newspaper notes in its response to the complaint that it sent an email to the communications unit of the relevant government department on May 25, as is standard practice when government officials are involved in a matter which is the subject of enquiry by the media.

3.3.2. Furthermore, especially in view of the fact that Sesing is a senior official in the provincial treasury department, it is reasonable for the newspaper to expect that the response from the department will include input from her insofar as any questions relate to her.

3.3.3. The fact that the newspaper contacted the complainant, but did not receive a response, should have been reported in Article 1 (in compliance with Clause 1.8 of the Press Code). Nevertheless, the point remains that the newspaper did contact the complainant for comment.

3.3.4. It is also worth noting that the newspaper approached Visagie and Botes for comment as well (see points 1.4 and 1.4.1 above).

3.3.5. Article 1 is therefore not in breach of either Clause 1.2 or 1.8 of the Press Code.

Article 2: Free State treasury head Sesing writes scathing letter to PSC

3.4. With regard to Article 2, the complainant objects to the use of the word “controversial” to refer to Sesing and says it is a breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code. This adjective is indeed sometimes used very casually, and imprecisely, in media reports.

3.4.1. Once again, this appears to be the case in this instance. According to the Collins English Dictionary: Millennium Edition, a controversy concerns a debate or dispute concerning a matter “about which there is strong disagreement and esp. [especially] one carried on in public or in the press”.

3.4.2. Article 2 does not provide any evidence to suggest that Sesing has previously been the subject of such a debate or dispute in the media or in the public domain more generally.

3.4.3. The allegation that Sesing interfered in the appointment of a senior official in the treasury department is, in itself, not sufficient grounds to describe her as “controversial”. Furthermore, she only became the subject of critical media attention after Sunday World published its two reports.[2]

3.4.4. Moreover, at the time of publication of Article 2, the allegation that Sesing interfered in the appointment of an official was just that – an allegation. It still remains to be proven otherwise.

3.4.5. In light of the pejorative connotations generally associated with the word “controversial”, its use in Article 2 is unfair and is therefore deemed to be in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.

3.5. The complainant also contends that the newspaper did not obtain comment from Sesing in terms of Clauses 1.2 and 1.8 of the Press Code.

3.5.1. The respondent did approach the communications unit of the treasury department for comment (as noted previously in points 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, this is standard practice in such instances).

3.5.2. However, Article 2 did not include Mokokoane’s response to the question which specifically relates to Sesing. This omission deprived the complainant of the right to reply.

3.5.3. As a result, Article 2 is in breach of Clause 1.8: there is no point in seeking the views of the subject of critical reportage if these are not reflected in the report that is subsequently published.

3.6. The complainant further denies that Sesing claimed that the PSC should not investigate her and argues that Article 2 is therefore in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.6.1. However, Sesing’s letter to Fikeni explicitly makes reference to a dispute between the Free State treasury and the Free State PSC over the interpretation of the PSC’s rules on conducting investigations.

3.6.2. Her letter goes on to question the jurisdiction “of the matters that can be investigated by the Commission”.

3.6.3. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the newspaper to state that Sesing believes she cannot be investigated by the PSC. In fact, her letter even directs an appeal to Fikeni to intervene in the matter.

3.6.4. In this regard, Article 2 is therefore not in breach of the Press Code.

3.7. The complainant also believes that Article 2 deliberately ignored the responses it provided on June 15 to the newspaper’s questions for a planned follow-up to Article 1, and believes that this is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.7.1. In the main, Mokokoane’s answers to these questions do not affect the contents of Article 2 in any material way. This article deals primarily with Sesing’s letter to Fikeni and, secondarily, to the PSC’s investigative interviews originally scheduled for June 13.

3.7.2. However, Article 2 should have recorded Mokokoane’s view that Sesing’s letter to Fikeni was “cordial” as this directly contradicts the newspaper’s characterisation of her letter as “scathing”. This omission is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.7.3. In his response to the newspaper’s questions on June 15, Mokokoane also disputes the claim in Article 1 that Botes colluded with Sesing because she (Botes) was not properly qualified for the position of CFO.

3.7.4. He points out that Botes joined the provincial government in another department years before Sesing was appointed as treasury head and that Botes was “rotated” to her current position by a former Premier with the knowledge and approval of the MECs of the relevant departments.

3.7.5. The newspaper should have included this information in Article 2 even though Botes is not mentioned by name in this article[3] and was not the subject of any of the newspaper’s questions for a follow-up to its May 28 article.

3.7.6. Nevertheless, as a follow-up to the May 28 article, the failure to include Mokokoane’s comment on Botes in Article 2 can be deemed to be a breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.8. There is, furthermore, some basis for the complainant’s denial that Sesing objected to the PSC’s investigation on the grounds that it is not an organ of state (there are two separate references to this aspect in Article 2).

3.8.1. While her letter does refer to this aspect, Sesing’s main objection is in fact based on the rules of PSC investigations. The first paragraph of her letter to Fikeni explicitly refers to a dispute between the Free State treasury and the Free State PSC over the interpretation of the PSC’s rules on investigations.

3.8.2. Sesing’s letter subsequently goes on to state quite clearly: “In essence, our dispute revolves around the jurisdiction of the matters that can be investigated by the Commission.”

3.8.3. Article 2 therefore misrepresents the basis of Sesing’s objection to the PSC investigation and is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.9. Lastly, the complainant does not provide any specific evidence to support its claim that Clause 1.3 of the Press Code was breached in either Article 1 or 2. It merely asserts this as a matter of fact.

4. Finding

Article 1

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 is dismissed (see the reasons set out in points 3.1.1 to 3.1.9 and in points 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of my Analysis).

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.3.1 to 3.3.5 of my Analysis.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 is dismissed (see point 3.9 of my Analysis).

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.3.1 to 3.3.5 of my Analysis.

Article 2

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 is upheld (see the reasons set out in points 3.4.1 to 3.4.5 of my Analysis).

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is upheld on three counts for the reasons outlined in (a) point 3.7.2, (b) points 3.7.3 to 3.7.6 and (c) points 3.8 to 3.8.3 of my Analysis.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 is dismissed (see point 3.9 of my Analysis).

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 is upheld for the reasons outlined in points 3.5.1 to 3.5.3 of my Analysis.

Firstly, Sunday World is required to publish an apology to the complainant for breaching Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.8 of the Press Code in Article 2. The headline of the apology should contain the words “apology” and either “Sesing” or an appropriate reference to “Free State Treasury”. The text of the apology should:

• be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed or, in the event of such an application, after that ruling;
• be published online as well as on all platforms where the article complained about was published;
• be published at the top of the online article;
• refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
• end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”;
• be published with the logo of the Press Council; and
• be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud.

Secondly, the breaches of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.8 in Article 2 should be identified as part of the apology in the print edition of the newspaper.

Thirdly, these breaches may be corrected in the text of the online version of Article 2, with an indication that it was amended following a ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud. These corrections should be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud.

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]

Tyrone August

Deputy Press Ombudsman

19 September 2023