Appeal Decision: Viroshini Naidoo & News24

SUMMARY

The article in question was headlined, Gupta ‘Fixer’ Kuben Moodley asks court to relax bail to travel to India (published on 8 December 2023).

This ruling by the chairperson of the Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, was based on the Press Code that became effective on 30 September 2022.

Ms Viroshini Naidoo applied for leave to appeal after the Ombud had dismissed her complaint in its entirety on 19 June 2024[1]. The article reported on a matter that served before a court in which her husband, Mr Kuben Moodley, applied for his bail conditions to be relaxed to enable him and his children to travel to India to attend a Hindu festival.

Mr Moodley stood accused on charges of fraud, corruption and money laundering.

The complainant contended that she had nothing to do with the court proceedings, hence there was no need for News24 to mention her (and her children) in the story. She complained that her privacy, dignity and reputation were tarnished, adding that the article was not in the best interests of her children.

News24 pointed out that the children’s names were not reported, adding: “[m]entioning them without naming them is indeed relevant because the story is based on Moodley’s argument in court that he ‘needed to attend the religious event with his children while they were still young’.”

Judge Ngoepe agreed, as the children were the main thrust of Moodley’s reasons for applying to have his bail conditions relaxed. He also noted that the mentioning of the children was instrumental in Kuben Moodley’s bail conditions to be relaxed.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

[1] The ruling can be found on this webpage under complaint number 30656.

THE RULING ITSELF

RE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA

In the matter between

Viroshini Naidoo                                                                                            Applicant

And

News24                                                                                                        Respondent

________________________________________________________________

1. Ms Viroshini Naidoo (applicant) applies for leave to appeal the Ruling handed down by the Ombud of the Press Council of South Africa dated 19 June 2024. The Ruling, which was on her complaint against News24 (respondent), dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The article the applicant complained about was published by the respondent on 8 December 2023, with the headline: “Gupta ‘Fixer’ Kuben Moodley asks court to relax bail to travel to India.” As the headline indicates, the article was reporting on a matter that served before court in which an accused person, Mr Kuben Moodley, asked for the court to relax his bail conditions to enable him to travel to India. He was out on bail on charges that allegedly involved fraud and money laundering, in transactions allegedly involving the Guptas whose accusations were traversed extensively in the well-known Zondo Commission.
2. The article mentioned that the applicant was Mr Moodley’s wife; that she had been appointed to the board of Eskom by a former Minister, Lynn Brown, who had not been described in flattering terms. The article mentioned that in motivation for the relaxation of his bail conditions, Mr Moodley said that he wanted to take his minor children for a religious occasion in India; the trip could not wait as it was time bound in that the children had to be taken to that religious ceremony while they were still minors. These were the submissions made by his lawyers to the court. Importantly, the names of the children were not mentioned in the article.
3. The applicant was irked by the fact that she and the children were mentioned in the article. The crux of her complaint was aptly summed up by the Press Ombud: She had nothing to do with the court proceedings; she was not an accused person; neither she nor the children were mentioned in the court papers; the publication put her and her children at risk.
4. In its response to the complaint, the respondent pointed out that the  children’s names were not mentioned, and then said the following: “But mentioning them without naming them is indeed relevant because the story ………is based on Moodley’s argument in court that he ‘needed to attend the religious event with his children while they were still young.’ News24 surely could not have omitted this because it was the main thrust of Mr Moodley’s reasons for applying to have his bail conditions relaxed ….. News24 says it was reporting on a privileged occasion, being court proceedings.”  This response should have closed the matter. Indeed, this was the Public Advocate’s view, but the applicant persisted that the matter be placed before the Press Ombud.
5. The Ombud correctly dismissed the complaint on the basis advanced by the respondent. The applicant sought to argue that the issue of taking the children to India was not contained in the court papers; but, as the respondent pointed out, these were the submissions made by her husband’s lawyers to the court. Indeed, it turns out that it was the mentioning of the children that caused bail conditions to be relaxed. Why did the applicant not object against her husband mentioning the children as the reason to go to India? The applicant cannot have it both ways; she cannot eat her cake and still have it. Neither could she object against the truth that she had worked for Eskom.
6. The Ombud was correct in his Ruling. The application for leave to appeal has no reasonable prospects of success, and it is therefore dismissed.

Dated this 22nd day of July 2024.

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel.