IOL vs Renaldo Gouws
SUMMARY
The headline to the story in dispute read, WATCH: ‘Kill the k*ffirs, kill all the f**ng n*ggers!’: New racist video of DA MP Renaldo Gouws surfaces (published on 19 June 2024).
This ruling by the Chair of the Appeals Panel Judge Bernard Ngoepe was based on the Press Code that became in effect on 30 September 2022.
According to the article, a new video had emerged of Renaldo Gouws under the title Kill all black people. Even though the video had been found to be legitimate, Gouws reportedly denied having made the video.
Gouws, lately a DA Member of Parliament, mainly complained that the IOL had cut a video of 6 minutes and 22 seconds down to 15 seconds “to create shock value, which robbed the story of the full context”. He did not deny what he was alleged to have said but complained that the video had been robbed of its context; he also said he did not mean anything he had said.
The Deputy Press Ombud upheld the complaint that:
- Gouws had not been given a right of reply;
- the article did not state that it had been based on limited information;
- the newspaper had allowed non-professional considerations to influence reporting which could have led readers to doubt the media’s independence and professionalism; and
- video content should not misrepresent or mislead nor be manipulated to do so.
IOL then applied for leave to appeal against the finding and the sanction.
Judge Ngoepe granted the application for leave to appeal as IOL had “reasonable prospects of success”. He did not want to motivate his decision, as that could have influenced the Panel of Appeals.
THE RULING ITSELF
BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOTH AFRICA
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
IOL APPLICANT
AND
RENALDO GOUWS RESPONDENT
Matter No 31853/06/2024
Decision on an Application for Leave to Appeal
- IOL (applicant) applies for leave to appeal the Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud dated 23 August 2024 in respect on a complaint that had been lodged by Mr Renaldo Gouws (respondent) against it. The complaint followed the publication by IOL of an article on 19 June 2024 with the headline: “WATCH: ‘Kill the k*ffirs, kill all the f**ng n*ggers!’: New racist video of DA MP Renaldo Gouws surfaces.” The author of the article was stated as Roscoe Palm.
- The Ruling provided a useful summary of the content of the article: According to the article a new video had emerged of DA MP Renaldo Gouws appearing spewing hate speech; quoting Gouws, as saying on the video published on YouTube: “Alright so there’s a couple of things I want to say. Kill the f**ing k*ffirs, kill all the f*ing n*ggers. That’s all I gotta f*ing say. Kill all the k*ffirs! Kill all the f*ing n*ggers!” He had previously made racist remarks; the latest video was allegedly published by him on 11 March 2010 under the title “Kill all black people.” It was subsequently deleted but reportedly only after it was archived on the Internet. The video was found to be legitimate. The respondent, when contacted for comment, denied having made the video or that he would have used those kinds of terms.
- The respondent, now a DA Member of Parliament, did not take kindly to the article and the revelation of the video by IOL. He alleged that the publication was in breach of several clauses of the Press Code, such as Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9. The crux of the complaint was, as put in the Ruling, that “the article relies on a 15-second clip of a much longer video. He believes IOL downloaded the full 6 minutes and 22 seconds of the clip …. But decided to cut it down in order ‘to create shock value, which robbed the story of the full context’”. The respondent did not deny what he was alleged to have said, but said context was not given; secondly, he said he did not mean anything he had said. He also seemed to reference Mr Julius Malema’s “Kill the Boer” as part of the context.
- In its response, IOL contended that irrespective of the context, the very use of the word “k*ffir” by the respondent was, by its nature, hate speech. IOL then referred to a decision of the Constitutional Court. I hasten to add that this argument alone, impacts on the prospects of success before the Appeals Panel. IOL also pointed out that the respondent was a public representative, making the words used even more abhorrent and newsworthy; that it only received the 15-second clip which it did not take on face value but also conducted its own investigation to establish the clip’s veracity. It also pointed out that the respondent had initially denied ever having made such a video, and claimed that it was either generated or manipulated through AI.
- Mr Gouws asked, as the relief, for an apology and retraction of the entire article. In his Ruling, the Deputy Press Ombud dismissed some of the complaints, while upholding others; in particular, he ruled that IOL had contravened the following clauses of the Code: 1.8, 1.9, 2.1 and 10.2; a sanction was then imposed. It is against these findings and sanction that IOL now seeks leave to appeal. For me to grant leave to appeal, the application must show reasonable prospects of success on appeal. I must therefore assess this.
- I have looked at the reasons given by the Deputy Press Ombud in the various respective paragraphs he referred to. I have also read IOL’s submissions in support of the application as well the opposing arguments on behalf of Mr Gouws. I am of the view that IOL has reasonable prospects of success on appeal; in this respect, I also take the liberty of referring to the third sentence of paragraph 4 above. Given the fact that I believe the matter should be argued before the Appeals Panel, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment further on the merits or otherwise of the reasons given in the Ruling for its findings against IOL. The starting point must be that Mr Gouws did make at least some of the offending remarks, context or no context. That is one of the considerations to render the matter arguable before the Appeals Panel. Even as he was given the time within which to respond, it can be reasonably argued that he ought to have been aware that he had indeed made at least some of those offending remarks.
- In the circumstances, IOL is hereby given leave to appeal against the findings by the Deputy Press Ombud, as well as the consequent sanctions; that IOL acted in breach of Clauses 1.8, 1.9, 2.1 and 10.2 of the Press Code.
Dated this 8th day of October 2024.
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel.
