C Nissen, P Ntuli, M Hunter-Parsonage and L-J Watkins vs Daily Maverick
Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August
26 March 2025
Finding: Complaint 32125
Date of publication: 15 November 2024
Headline:
An internally fractured SAHRC muddies the waters over Zuma’s suspected link to 2021 riots
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2024-11-15-an-internally-fractured-sahrc-muddies-the-waters-over-zumas-suspected-link-to-2021-riots/
Author: Rebecca Davis
Particulars
This finding is based on a written Letter of Demand by attorney Mr Rupert Candy on behalf of Rev Chris Nissen, Ms Philile Ntuli, Ms Mateenah Hunter-Parsonage and Ms Laura-Jane Watkins; a written reply to that letter on behalf of Daily Maverick by its Editor-in-Chief, Ms Jillian Green; a formal complaint lodged with the Press Council by Mr Candy, supplemented by a letter clarifying issues raised by the Public Advocate; a further written response by Daily Maverick journalist Ms Rebecca Davis; and an additional written response by Mr Candy, together with five annexures. In addition, I requested a copy of Ms Ntuli’s response to a request for comment by Ms Davis.
Complaint
The complainants submit that the article transgresses Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 1.8, 3.3 and 11.2 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; …
“1.7 verify the accuracy of doubtful information, if practicable; if not, this shall be stated;
“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; …
“3.3 exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation, which may be overridden only if it is in the public interest and if:
“3.3.1. the facts reported are true or substantially true; or
“3.3.2. the reportage amounts to protected comment based on facts that are adequately referred to and that are either true or reasonably true; or
“3.3.3. the reportage amounts to a fair and accurate report of court proceedings, Parliamentary proceedings or the proceedings of any quasi-judicial tribunal or forum; or
“3.3.4. it was reasonable for the information to be communicated because it was prepared in accordance with acceptable principles of journalistic conduct; or
“3.3.5. the content was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the complainant was a party; …
“11.2 avoid the use of anonymous sources unless there is no other way to deal with a story, and shall take care to corroborate such information …”
- Summary of article
1.1. According to the article, the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) report on the causes of the July 2021 unrest that was released in January 2024 concluded that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that it was linked to the jailing of former president Jacob Zuma.
1.1.1. However, the article added, SAHRC sources told the publication that the original version of the report drew a “clear line” between Zuma’s incarceration and the violence, and that this was removed mainly at the insistence of Commission chair Chris Nissen and Commissioner Philile Ntuli.
1.1.2. The article also referred to the views of KwaZulu-Natal violence researcher Mary de Haas, a report by the Expert Panel appointed by the Presidency to look into the unrest and submissions by civil society organisations.
1.1.3. It further noted that two senior SAHRC sources – who spoke on condition of anonymity – told Daily Maverick that the production of the report deepened existing fractures within the organisation because Nissen and Ntuli reportedly insisted that the SAHRC “not link Zuma to the violence”.
1.2. In response to questions from the publication, Nissen acknowledged that he had prevented the Commission from finding that Zuma’s incarceration triggered the unrest and said that the SAHRC would “not be bullied into making incorrect, scapegoating findings”. He denied that the original report had been edited to remove the finding that Zuma’s jailing was the root cause of the unrest.
1.2.1. He said that he, Ntuli, evidence leaders and researchers strongly opposed what he described as an attempt to politically influence the outcome of the SAHRC’s investigation. As a result, he added, a smear campaign was launched against him.
1.3. The article went on to refer to a “state of dysfunction” within the SAHRC and reported that its investigation revealed a picture of an institution that was deeply divided. It referred to Nissen and Ntuli as “major contributors to the toxic environment”.
1.3.1. Nissen, for instance, is accused of having often said that he was deployed by “Luthuli House” to chair the SAHRC. He told Daily Maverick that he had declared his historical affiliation to the ANC in order “to emphasise and claim my impartiality and independence”.
1.3.2. He further stated that he had held senior ANC members accountable for human rights violations since he joined the commission in 2017. He said his past work with the ANC does not and will not have any impact on his impartiality.
1.4. The article also reported an allegation that Nissen “is sometimes inebriated on the job”. To support this claim, it quoted from a recording of a SAHRC meeting on 4 November 2024 and said that “Nissen audibly slurs his words”.
1.4.1. In response, Nissen told Daily Maverick that he had been speaking for hours and that his voice may have been strained.
1.4.2. According to the article, this meeting took place after Nissen and Ntuli were called before Parliament’s justice portfolio committee as a result of at least three SAHRC staff members writing to the committee “to ask for assistance and protection against Nissen and Ntuli”.
1.5. The article went on to report on a complaint to Parliament that Ntuli allegedly attempted to inflame racial tensions against people of Indian descent in June 2024 during a visit to Tongaat after it was hit by a tornado.
1.5.1. Ntuli told Daily Maverick that her visit to the site of the tornado made it clear that areas “occupied by persons and families of Indian descent” had received “either better, coordinated assistance, or more resources” than informal settlements “occupied predominantly by African persons and families”.
1.5.2. The complaint to Parliament further claimed that, during a visit to a KwaZulu-Natal school, Ntuli “deliberately probed whether the African principal was being discriminated against by educators of Indian descent, despite there being no complaints or evidence to support such claims”.
1.5.3. Ntuli confirmed that she had asked the principal about “his experiences of transformation” and denied that there was anything wrong about such a question in “a deliberately transformational society”.
1.5.4. Now-suspended SAHRC CEO Vusumuzi Mkhize reportedly recommended that Nissen take disciplinary action against Ntuli, but apparently nothing was done – “exacerbating the sense within the SAHRC that Nissen and Ntuli are in cahoots”.
1.5.5. When they appeared before Parliament on 1 November 2024 to address complaints, Ntuli told MPs that the allegations against her were “politically motivated” and accused staff members of trying to “evade consequence management by running to the committee with false allegations”.
1.6. The article also dealt with Mkhize’s suspension around the end of September 2024. Nissen told Daily Maverick that he had suspended him because Mkhize was accused of “acts of serious misconduct”.
1.6.1. He referred to a Public Protector report published in 2021 which found Mkhize guilty of maladministration and of violating the Constitution. He noted that the SAHRC was investigating the matter.
1.6.2. However, this was reportedly already known to the SAHRC. Former SAHRC chair Bongani Majola told Daily Maverick that Mkhize had disclosed during an interview that he had been the subject of a Public Protector report and disciplinary action at Home Affairs.
1.6.3. According to SAHRC sources, the rehashing of the Public Protector’s findings was “a convenient stick with which to beat Mkhize”.
1.7. The article then went on to refer to the SAHRC’s reputation as “the most internally toxic Chapter 9 institution” and pointed out that Parliament’s justice committee has repeatedly commented on the high staff turnover.
1.7.1. Although this predates Nissen’s appointment as chair in November 2023, Daily Maverick sources claim that the situation has deteriorated in recent years – “with the wrangling over the July 2021 unrest report creating a situation of warfare between commissioners”.
- Arguments
C Nissen, P Ntuli, M Hunter-Parsonage and L-J Watkins
2.1. Complaint one: The complainants claim that the article misrepresents the findings in the SAHRC’s report on the July 2021 unrest.
2.1.1. In particular, they submit that the article incorrectly quotes a SAHRC finding as stating that “while the timing of the events of the July unrest coincided with the incarceration of … Zuma, it could not find evidence to link the two events”.
2.1.2. Instead, they submit, the SAHRC found that “while the timing of the events of the July Unrest coincided with the incarceration of … Zuma”, it is ultimately “within the purview of SAPS and the NPA to make a conclusive finding of the politically linked orchestration of the Unrest”.
2.1.3. They therefore deny that the SAHRC report found that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the 2021 unrest was linked to Zuma’s jailing. What the report did state, they argue, is that the SAHRC was unable to conclusively link Zuma to the orchestration of the unrest.
2.1.4. They believe that the article distorted this finding, either deliberately or negligently, and therefore request a correction and apology.
2.2. Complaint two: The complainants submit that the article misrepresents the drafting history of the SAHRC report and dismiss as false the claims by unnamed SAHRC sources that “the original version of the report drew a ‘clear line’ between Zuma’s incarceration and the violence, but that this was removed at the insistence of Nissen and Ntuli”.
2.2.1. They state that the original version of the report was drafted by Mateenah Hunter-Parsonage and Laura-Jane Watkins, who were specifically assigned to do so and were involved in every aspect of the investigation. They add that Hunter-Parsonage and Watkins confirm that this version was consistent with the final version of the report.
2.2.2. The complainants maintain that it was the SAHRC’s then Acting Head of Legal, Matthew du Plessis, and then Commissioner Andre Gaum who attempted to insert a finding that the unrest was politically orchestrated by people connected with Zuma.
2.2.3. They say they resisted these attempts because there was no material evidence before the SAHRC to support such a finding and reiterate that the claims by unnamed SAHRC sources are completely untrue.
2.2.4. They submit that Du Plessis and Gaum – whom they presume to be Daily Maverick’s anonymous sources – were the only ones who had tried to “doctor” the SAHRC report and that they had attempted to do so for political reasons. They submit that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 for accusing the wrong people of trying to “doctor” the report.
2.2.5. The complainants also refer to Clause 11.2 of the Press Code and state that Daily Maverick relied on two “non-independent sources” who did not have any basis to claim anonymity. In addition, they state that the article is in breach of Clause 1.7.
2.2.6. In light of the above, they request a correction and an apology.
2.3. Complaint three: This refers to the references in the article that Nissen was “previously arrested for drunk driving” and that “he is sometimes inebriated on the job”. Nissen submits that Daily Maverick did not provide him with an opportunity to comment.
2.3.1. He maintains that this is in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code and requests an apology.
2.4. Complaint four: The complainants contend that the article unfairly and inaccurately claims that Ntuli “had unduly racialised the provision of services to different communities” in the wake of the 2021 unrest. They submit that the article is therefore in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
2.4.1. They also believe that the article does not fairly reflect Ntuli’s responses and is thus in breach of Clause 1.8 as well.
2.4.2. Furthermore, they argue that the failure to fairly reflect Ntuli’s response, “even in summary form”, was a distortion or misrepresentation of the facts and in breach of Clause 1.2.
2.4.3. With regard to Ntuli’s visit to a KwaZulu-Natal school, they submit that the article omitted important parts of her response – in their view, a distortion or misrepresentation of the facts and a further breach of Clause 1.2.
2.4.4. Ntuli requests a correction and an apology for these breaches of the Press Code.
2.5. Complaint five: The complainants object to the user-generated comments on the article on the grounds that they are defamatory and unjustified. As such, they request Daily Maverick to remove these comments.
2.6. Lastly, the complainants request a 300-word right of reply on Daily Maverick’s website in addition to the apologies and corrections referred to above.
Daily Maverick
2.7. In its response, Daily Maverick says that it does not intend to address every allegation in the complaint and that it reserves the right to do so “in the appropriate forum, should it prove necessary”.
2.7.1. The respondent goes on to state that it believes its article relates to a matter of public interest and that it is both legally and ethically justifiable.
2.7.2. It adds that the public has a constitutional right to be informed about matters relating to the management of an important Chapter 9 institution such as the SAHRC and that Daily Maverick has a concomitant constitutional right to report on these matters.
2.7.3. It further points out that these matters have been the subject of privileged proceedings in Parliament.
2.7.4. The respondent declares that it stands by its article and rejects the complainants’ request to publish any corrections and apologies. It also declines to publish a 300-word right of reply.
2.8. Regarding the complainants’ request that Daily Maverick remove user-generated comments, the publication states that they did not provide any motivation except to claim that the comments are “plainly defamatory and unjustified”.
2.8.1. Nevertheless, the publication closed the comments section of the article.
C Nissen, P Ntuli, M Hunter-Parsonage and L-J Watkins vs Daily Maverick
2.9. In their reply, the complainants submit that they do not require anything further regarding the user-generated comments in light of the fact that these have been removed.
2.9.1. With regard to their request for a right of reply, they reiterate that “critical allegations” were not put to them, in particular that Nissen was “sometimes inebriated on the job” and was “previously arrested for drunk driving”.
2.9.2. They add that important parts of Ntuli’s responses were not fairly reflected, even in summary.
2.9.3. As a result, they believe, the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.
- 10. The complainants further state that the main grounds of their complaint are that the article misrepresents the contents and the drafting history of the SAHRC’s report on the July 2021 unrest.
- 10.1. In particular, they state that the article materially misquotes from the report and then uses that to accuse Nissen and Ntuli of “doctoring” the report for political reasons. If the basis for the accusations is wrong, they submit, then the accusations are wrong as well.
- 10.2. As such, they contend that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 3.3 of the Press Code.
2.11. The complainants further submit that the article relies on two anonymous sources – “known to be Andre Gaum and Matthew du Plessis” – who, in their view, have no bona fide basis to claim anonymity and bear a grudge against them.
2.11.1. They contend that basing an article on their allegations, without any corroboration by independent sources, is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.7, 3.3 and 11.2 of the Press Code.
Daily Maverick
2.12. In its reply, the respondent outlines the background to the article and points out that Ntuli initially contacted the publication “about abuse of power and wrongdoing at the SAHRC”, with a particular focus on allegations against Mkhize.
2.12.1. Ntuli subsequently contacted the publication from time to time, which concerned the respondent as it got the impression that she had a personal interest in the article being published.
2.12.2. The publication then approached other people at the SAHRC and was advised that an accurate story about the dysfunction within the institution should instead focus on Nissen and Ntuli.
2.12.3. The publication asks that this background be taken into account because it suggests that Ntuli’s complaint – at least in part – stems from a grievance that it did not end up writing the article “in the manner she intended”.
2.13. Complaint one: The respondent submits that the main claim of this aspect of the complaint is that the publication fabricated a quote from the SAHRC’s final report on the July 2021 unrest.
2.13.1. It rejects this claim as false and declares that the article correctly quotes from the SAHRC’s final report. It adds that Ntuli can in fact be viewed reading those exact words from the report to the media.
2.14. Complaint two: The respondent denies that it misrepresented the drafting history of the report and states that its report that Ntuli and Nissen intervened to prevent Zuma from being blamed for the unrest was based on interviews with several SAHRC staff members.
2.14.1. It argues that the complainants’ response – that two officials attempted to insert a finding that the unrest was orchestrated by individuals connected to Zuma and that Nissen and Ntuli resisted these attempts – effectively says the same thing.
2.14.2. It further dismisses speculation by the complainants about the identity of its sources as mistaken and regards this as an attempt at intimidation.
2.14.3. The publication also refutes the assertion that there is no basis for its sources to claim anonymity and views this as an attempt to pressurise it to reveal the identity of its whistleblowers.
2.15. Complaint three: The respondent denies that it did not grant Nissen an opportunity to comment on the allegation that he is sometimes drunk at work.
2.15.1. The publication says it gave him an opportunity to comment on the allegation that he appeared audibly drunk in an online meeting and duly recorded his comment (it refers to the comment in the article mentioned in point 1.4.1).
2.16. Complaint four: The publication disputes that it unfairly accused Ntuli of sowing racial divisions and states that this part of the article was based on a complaint submitted to Parliament “which reflected the content of a unanimous complaint against Ntuli from the entire SAHRC KZN team”.
2.16.1. With regard to the complaint that the article only quotes a limited portion of Ntuli’s response to this allegation, the publication submits that it is standard journalistic practice to shorten quotes “as long as the summarised quote fairly addresses the most significant allegations”.
2.16.2. The publication says it is confident that its quotes do fairly address the crux of Ntuli’s response to the allegations.
2.17. Complaint five: Regarding the complaint that readers left defamatory comments on the article, the respondent points out that reader comments are moderated for hate speech by other readers as it cannot afford to employ a full-time moderation team.
2.17.1. It notes that, as a gesture of goodwill, the publication ended comments on the article after it received the first letter from the SAHRC’s lawyer.
C Nissen, P Ntuli, M Hunter-Parsonage and L-J Watkins vs Daily Maverick
2.18. The complainants state that the respondent fails to appreciate that the Press Council complaint is also lodged by Hunter-Parsonage and Watkins, who were assigned to draft the SAHRC’s unrest report.
2.18.1. They argue that the “erasure” of the writers of the report resulted in an unbalanced and misleading article.
2.19. The complainants go on to dispute the background to the article provided by the publication and state that Ntuli communicated with the publication on the basis that she was a confidential source.
2.19.1 They submit that the publication was bound by the Press Code to maintain that confidentiality, but instead breached it in an attempt to discredit her.
- 19.2. They also argue that the disclosure of the publication’s communication with Ntuli is gratuitous and done in order to create suspicion about her motive for the complaint.
2.19.3. They further contend that the allegations against Mkhize were serious and dismiss the suggestion that Ntuli approached the publication in order to conduct a personal smear campaign against him.
2.20. Complaint one: The complainants note that the quotation in their complaint was taken from the executive summary of a version of the report, marked “Final”, on 29 January 2024. However, they point out that this summary was edited later that morning by agreement between the Commissioners and the CEO and that they inadvertently referred to the earlier version in their complaint.
2.20.1. They therefore acknowledge that the quotation in the article is correct and apologise for the error.
2.20.2. Nevertheless, they maintain that the article misrepresents the findings in the report by omitting that the finding about the alleged “link” between the orchestration of the unrest and Zuma’s incarceration remained the same in the final report and in the provisional report dated 31 July 2023 (Annexure “B”).
2.20.3. They further submit that the full and final report was agreed on by consensus among all the Commissioners and the secretariat at various meetings between 12 and 15 December 2024.
2.20.4. They add that the full analysis is in the body of the report, and that the Daily Maverick article does not give the reader any insight into the SAHRC’s reasons for concluding that it could not find evidence to link the orchestration of the unrest to Zuma’s incarceration.
2.20.5. They argue that the publication could create the false impression that the finding was “shoehorned” into the report by Nissen and Ntuli only by omitting “all of the above”. They add that such a version is contradicted by the final report, the provisional report and recordings of meetings.
2.21. Complaint two: They state that the publication interviewed “multiple SAHRC staffers” about the drafting history of the report, but did not contact the actual drafters of the report, namely Hunter-Parsonage and Watkins.
2.21.1. Whether this was deliberate or careless, the complainants believe that the publication is in breach of the Press Code.
2.21.2. They also deem it highly implausible that the publication did not speak to Gaum and Du Plessis and add that, if this is indeed the case, it was “grossly negligent” as the two played a central role in the internal SAHRC dispute about blaming Zuma and his supporters for the 2021 unrest.
2.21.3. They further deny that their complaint about Gaum and Du Plessis was in any way an attempt to force the publication to reveal its sources and maintain that it was a logical assumption “given the subject matter and message of the article”.
2.21.4. They reiterate their view that Gaum and Du Plessis did not have any legitimate claim to confidentiality and that, as such, the article is in breach of Clause 11.2 of the Press Code (see points 2.11 and 2.11.1 above).
- 21.5. The complainants also contend that there is material information about the drafting history of the report which the publication either did not obtain and consider (“which would have been negligent”) or did obtain and consider but withheld it from the public (“which would be unethical, untruthful and unbalanced”).[1]
2.21.6. They emphasise that the adoption of the final unrest report was taken by consensus by all five Commissioners – not only by Nissen and Ntuli.
2.22. Complaint three: The complainants submit that the publication only gave Nissen an opportunity to comment on the recording of a meeting in which his speech appeared slurred. However, they say, it did give him any opportunity to comment on the allegations that he was “sometimes drunk at work” and that he was once arrested for drunk driving.
2.22.1. As such, they maintain, the article breached Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.
2.23. Complaint four: The complainants accept that an article cannot quote a person’s comment in full. However, they maintain that the article did not fairly reflect the substance of Ntuli’s comment.
2.24. Complaint five: The complainants state that their complaint about the defamatory user-generated comments on the article has been addressed.
- Analysis
3.1. Complaint one: According to this complaint, the article misrepresents the findings in the SAHRC’s report on the July 2021 unrest.
3.1.1. The complainants initially contend that the article incorrectly quotes the SAHRC finding as stating that “while the timing of the events of the July unrest coincided with the incarceration of … Zuma, it could not find evidence to link the two events”.
3.1.1.1. However, they subsequently concede that the quote – taken from the executive summary of a version of a report dated 29 January 2024, which was marked “Final” – is correct (see points 2.20 and 2.20.1; also see “Summary of Report”, “Findings”, page 12).[2]
3.1.2. Nevertheless, the complainants maintain that the Daily Maverick article misrepresents the SAHRC’s findings and cites its failure to mention that the alleged “link” between the orchestration of the unrest and Zuma’s incarceration remains the same in the provisional report and in the final report.
3.1.2.1. However, it is important to note that the Daily Maverick article does not refer to the SAHRC’s provisional report but to the SAHRC’s original report (my emphases).
3.1.3. Be that as it may, the question remains whether the respondent was entitled to publish the claim that the SAHRC’s original report was changed on the basis of the information at its disposal.
3.1.3.1. In this regard, it must be emphasised that the publication does not rely on a single source only for the claim that the SAHRC’s original report was changed to remove a direct link between Zuma’s incarceration and the 2021 violence.
3.1.3.2. The publication used more than one source in an effort to corroborate this claim. According to the article, the journalist spoke to “senior SAHRC sources” and the respondent points out in its submission that the article was based on interviews with “multiple SAHRC staffers”.
3.1.3.3. After having spoken to more than one source, the publication then proceeded in good faith to report on the claim of these sources that the original SAHRC report on the 2021 violence was changed to remove a direct link between Zuma’s incarceration and the 2021 violence.
3.1.3.4. It is not within the domain of the office of the Press Ombud to establish whether this was indeed the case. Its role is limited to making a pronouncement on whether the publication was entitled to publish this claim on the basis of the information at its disposal and whether doing so was in line with the Press Code.
3.1.3.5. My view is that, in light of the fact that the publication relied on more than one source, it was indeed entitled to publish the claim that the original report of the SAHRC on the 2021 violence was changed.
3.1.3.6. Furthermore, it duly gave Nissen – one of those named as being involved in changing the original SAHRC report – an opportunity to respond to this claim (see point 1.2). While he acknowledges that he prevented the SAHRC from finding that Zuma’s incarceration triggered the violence, the article records his denial that the report was edited to remove a finding that the former president’s jailing was the root cause of the violence.
3.1.3.7. In view of the above considerations, the article is not in breach of Clause 1.1, Clause 1.2 or Clause 3.3 of the Press Code.
3.2. Complaint two: This complaint relates to what the complainants refer to as the drafting history of the SAHRC report on the July 2021 violence.
3.2.1. In particular, they dismiss as false the claims by the SAHRC’s sources that “the original version of the report drew a ‘clear line’ between Zuma’s incarceration and the violence”, but that this was removed at the insistence of Nissen and Ntuli.
3.2.1.1. The complainants go on to speculate in their complaint that Gaum and Du Plessis are the anonymous sources behind the claim that the original report was altered and refer to them as “two non-independent sources who have an axe to grind with the SAHRC, and [who] had no basis to claim anonymity”.
3.2.1.2. As noted above in relation to Complaint One, the respondent maintains that its article was based on interviews with several SAHRC sources (see point 3.1.3.2)[3] and, furthermore, it insists that the complainants are mistaken about the identity of its sources.
3.2.1.3. It also disputes the claim that its sources “had no basis to claim anonymity” and regards any attempt to speculate about their identities as an act of intimidation.
3.2.1.4. It cannot be emphasised strongly enough that the publication is entitled to protect the confidentiality of its sources. In fact, Clause 11.1 of the Press Code refers to this obligation as “a basic principle in a democratic and free society”.
3.2.1.5. Nevertheless, Clause 11.2 cautions that such sources should only be used “unless there is no other way to deal with a story, and shall take care to corroborate such information”. The question, then, is whether the respondent sufficiently complies with this obligation.
3.2.1.6. As noted in Complaint One, the publication does not rely on a single source only in support of the claim that the SAHRC’s original report was changed to remove a direct link between Zuma’s incarceration and the 2021 violence.
3.2.1.7. The publication approached more than one source in an attempt to corroborate this claim.
3.2.1.8. And, after having spoken to more than one source, it then proceeded in good faith to report the claim of these sources that the original SAHRC report on the 2021 violence was changed to remove a direct link between Zuma’s incarceration and the 2021 violence.
3.2.1.9. As stated earlier, it is not within the purview of the office of the Press Ombud to investigate whether or not this was indeed the case. Its role is limited to making a pronouncement on whether the publication was entitled to publish the claim that the report was changed on the basis of the information at its disposal and whether this was in compliance with the Press Code.
3.2.1.10. With regard to Complaint One, I found that the publication was justified in publishing the claim and that it did so in compliance with the Press Code. The same finding, logically, applies in this instance as well.
3.2.1.11. The article is therefore not in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.7, 3.3 and 11.2 of the Press Code.
3.3. Complaint three: There are two aspects to this complaint: firstly, that Nissen was not asked to comment on his arrest on a charge of drunken driving and, secondly, that he was not asked to comment on the allegation that he “is sometimes inebriated on the job”.
3.3.1. With regard to the first aspect of the complaint, there was no obligation on the respondent to seek comment from Nissen about his arrest on the drunk driving charge, which dates back to January 2015.
3.3.1.1. His arrest on this charge a decade ago is a matter of public record (see, for example, Daily Voice, “Ex-ANC held for drunk driving”, 27 January 2015[4] and News24, “Chris Nissen arrested for drunken driving”, 27 January 2015).[5]
3.3.1.2. Furthermore, the reference in the Daily Maverick article to Nissen’s arrest does not make any comments on the charge; it merely notes his arrest on this charge as a matter of fact.
3.3.2. There are insufficient grounds for the second aspect of the complaint as well.
3.3.2.1. The article cites one incident as an example to support a claim that Nissen was sometimes inebriated at work and approached him for comment in this regard. His response was duly published (see point 1.4).
3.3.2.2. The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code therefore lacks sufficient merit.
3.4. Complaint four: There are two aspects to this complaint.
3.4.1. Firstly, the complainants claim that the Daily Maverick article unfairly accuses Ntuli of sowing racial divisions in KwaZulu-Natal.
3.4.1.1. However, as the respondent rightly points out, this part of its article was based on a complaint submitted to Parliament by staff members of the SAHRC based in KwaZulu-Natal.
3.4.1.2. In other words, the claims that Ntuli sowed racial divisions in the province was made by SAHRC staff members and not by Daily Maverick; the publication was simply reporting on the contents of a complaint to Parliament.
3.4.1.3. Furthermore, it is trite that reporting on Parliamentary proceedings enjoy qualified privilege, and that such occasions are within the public domain and can therefore be published.
3.4.1.4. Nevertheless, even though the publication was not obliged to do so, it still afforded Ntuli an opportunity to respond.
3.4.1.5. By doing so, the publication was therefore going the extra mile to be fair and balanced.
3.4.1.6. On the basis of the considerations above, there are no grounds for the complaint that the article is in breach of either Clause 1.1 or Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
3.4.2. The second aspect of the complaint is that the article does not fairly reflect Ntuli’s response and, in addition, that it distorts or misrepresents the facts.
3.4.2.1. However, it is the prerogative of a publication to select which aspects of a reply to publish, as long as it does not distort the substance of that response.
3.4.2.2. The Daily Maverick article sufficiently meets this obligation. Even though Ntuli’s statement was not quoted in greater detail, it is nonetheless a reasonable summation.
3.4.3. In any event, as noted in point 3.4.1.3, reporting on Parliamentary proceedings enjoy qualified privilege.
3.4.3.1. A publication is thus not obliged to approach someone named in a privileged document or occasion for comment. Nevertheless, in this instance Daily Maverick gave Ntuli an opportunity to respond to the claims of SAHRC staff members in KwaZulu-Natal.
3.4.3.2. It would therefore be unreasonable to sanction Daily Maverick on the grounds that it did not publish a more comprehensive account of Ntuli’s reply to the claims made to Parliament when, in the first place, it was not strictly necessary to do so at all.
3.4.3.3. In light of the above, the Daily Maverick article is not in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.
3.5. Complaint five: The complainants are satisfied with the removal of the user-generated comments on the article (see point 2.9 above), so it is not necessary to adjudicate the merits of this complaint.
- Finding
Complaint one: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 3.3 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.1.2 to 3.1.3.6 of my Analysis.
Complaint two: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.7, 3.3 and 11.2 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.2.1.2 to 3.2.1.10 of my Analysis.
Complaint three: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.3.1 to 3.3.2.2 of my Analysis.
Complaint four:
- The complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and2 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.4.1.1 to 3.4.1.5 of my Analysis.
- The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.4.2.1 to 3.4.3.2 of my Analysis.
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 Ombud
26 March 2025
[1] This refers to Annexures “C”, “D” and “E”.
[2] See https://www.sahrc.org.za/home/21/files/JULY%20UNREST%20REPORT%20FINAL_29%20JAN%202024.pdf
[3] According to the article, the Daily Maverick investigation on which it is based included interviews with “multiple senior current and past SAHRC employees”.
[4] See https://www.iol.co.za/news/ex-anc-leader-held-for-drunk-driving-1809563#google_vignette
[5] See https://www.news24.com/news24/chris-nissen-arrested-for-drunken-driving-20150127
