Juwairiya Kaldine vs Mail & Guardian

BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA
In the matter between
Juwairiya Kaldine Applicant
and
The Mail & Guardian Respondent
Matter No 31781/04/2024
Decision on an Application for Leaver to Appeal
1. The applicant is Juwairiya Kaldine, a Johannesburg Patriotic Alliance (PA) councillor.
The applicant wants leave to appeal the Ruling of the Deputy Press Ombud, dated 12
September 2024 which dismissed the applicant’s complaints against the Mail &
Guardian (respondent). The complaints followed an article published by the
respondent in print on 4 April 2024, with the headline “PA councillor ‘fraudulently’
transferred land to taxis.” The same article appeared online on 5 April 2024 with a
similar headline “PA councillor accused of ‘fraudulent’ Joburg land transfer.” The
article, as well as the headlines, were based on a letter by a civic body in Eldorado
Park known as the Community Accountability Gatekeepers (CAG) given to the
respondent. As the Ruling says, the report quoted CAG’s letter of complaint to the
provincial and Johannesburg city authorities, in effect complaining that the applicant
had transferred a piece of land to the taxi people. In complaining against the article
and the headlines, the applicant said the following: “I indeed did write a letter on 14
December 2023 telling the taxi association that I did not have an objection to the
development of a taxi rank in my ward…” The applicant then went further to say that
“at that time I was under the mistaken impression that the land was owned by the
City. When it was brought to my attention that the land is apparently owned by the
Gauteng province, I provided the association with a no objection letter, which they
needed to take to the province in order to gain approval to use the land. I told the
M&G exactly this, in the same words as I have provided above….” The applicant
complained that the article misconstrued the letter as “granting permission to the
association to occupy the vacant land.” Of course, if this is what the respondent did,
it would be a huge jump to elevate a “no objection” letter to the one that “grants
permission to occupy the land.”
2. The applicant complained about the use of the word “fraudulently/fraudulent” in the
headlines. The complaint was, correctly, dismissed by the Deputy Ombud. The
respondent was merely quoting the CAG; and the words were put in inverted
commas. I agree with the finding, as long as that relates, as the Ruling says, to the
use of the City’s letterhead. Secondly, again as the Ruling says, while it is accepted
that she had made an honest error, the applicant “did not say so in her comments to
the newspaper before publication, and so the M&G was justified in highlighting the
contradiction.” Regarding this complaint, the applicant has no reasonable prospects
of success on appeal.
3. Properly understood, the applicant’s complaint was also about the alleged fraud in
relation to the permission to occupy and use the land, based on a letter which simply
restricts itself to “no objection.” To the extent that this complaint is dismissed, my
view is that the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal. In this
context, it is noteworthy that the Deputy Ombud says the following: “The letter from
Kaldine to the taxi association is at the heart of the matter. In its simple terms, the
complainants argue that it merely says she has no objection to the use of the site. In
other words, it does not allocate the land as claimed by the CGA (sic) and reflected in
the report.” However, on the basis of certain premises, which would be inappropriate
for me to discuss now, the Ruling dismissed the complaint based on unfair reporting.
The correctness of those premises is arguable; I therefore decide that the applicant
has reasonable prospects of success in this respect and thus leave to appeal should
be granted.
4. The applicant is therefore hereby granted leave to appeal against the dismissal of her
complaint that clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.7 were breached.
Dated this 24th day of October 2024
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel.