Safa and Jordaan vs City Press
Complaint 32115
Ruling by the Press Ombud
Date of article: 27 October 2024
Headline of publication: ‘Revolt brewing over Danny Jordaan’s plan for fourth term as Safa boss’
Author: Tiisetso Malepa
1. Mr Lesedi Mphahlele of Fairbridges Wertheim Becker Attorneys complains on behalf of the South African Football Association (Safa) and Dr Danny Jordaan in his personal capacity.
2. The Public Advocate declined to accept the complaint on the basis that there was no prima facie breach of the Press Code. The complainants requested an adjudication.
3. Mr Rapule Tabane answered the merits of the complaint on behalf of City Press.
Background
4. Jordaan has been the president of Safa for three terms. City Press reported Jordaan has ambitions for a fourth four-year term in office but that this is being met with resistance from within the ranks of Safa. According to City Press’ report, Jordaan indicated during the last elections in 2022 that he would not seek a further term as leader but has now apparently changed his mind.
5. City Press also reported about a document titled, “Safa Challenges: A Call for Safa reform”, which is described as an “unsigned dossier” containing allegations of governance issues at Safa.
6. This document further claimed that the Fifa Forward Project allocated R8 million to Safa for the upgrade of facilities at the Safa Technical Centre in the south of Johannesburg. Out of this amount, R2.3m was allegedly earmarked for ablution facilities and a portable pavilion, but “these upgrades are not visible at the venue”.
7. The document further claimed that the Fifa Forward Project also allocated $430 000 for the establishment of a merchandising store, which allegedly did not materialise.
8. Lastly, City Press reported, there were questions about the 2010 Legacy Trust and an alleged commitment made to purchase bakkies for 52 Safa regions. This alleged commitment also did not materialise, according to the report.
9. Mphahlele sets out the complaint in the following categories:
9.1. “Provocative and misleading language”. Under this theme, he argues that the headline’s reference to “revolt” “suggests there is violence at SAFA”, and that the phrase in the body of the article stating that Jordaan “wants to cling on to power” is provocative and carries negative undertones. Says Mphahlele : “[City Press] erred in driving a narrative which is to the effect that [Dr Jordaan] is obsessed with power”.
9.2. Reporting about the Fifa Forward projects. Here, the complainants object to the reportage on the claims “without confirming the veracity of this information prior to publishing”, said to be in breach of clauses 1.7. and 1.9. of the Press Code.
9.3. Lack of right of reply. The complainants say “[Jordaan] was not contacted for a reply”. While Safa was approached for comment it is argued that Jordaan, as a subject of critical reportage, had to be approached for comment prior to publication as Safa’s spokesperson is not Dr Jordaan’s personal spokesperson.
Public Advocate’s decision
10. As already mentioned above, the Public Advocate did not accept the complaint on the basis that there was no prima facie breach of the Press Code.
11. Clause 1.6.2. of the Complaints Procedure provides a discretion for the Public Advocate not to accept a complaint under various circumstances, including circumstances where the complaint “prima facie falls outside the ambit of the Press code or where there has been no prima facie breach of the Press Code”.
12. The phrase, “no prima facie breach of the Press Code”, was introduced in the Complaints Procedure during 2023 and has not received much attention in rulings of the Press Ombud or Appeals Panel.
13. The role of the Public Advocate is prescribed in the constitution of the Press Council as follows :
“The Public Advocate will assist members of the public to formulate their complaints about journalistic ethics…and attempt to resolve complaints amicably by liaising directly with the publication on behalf of the complainant.”
14. The crucial functions the Public Advocate therefor include the mediation of disputes, to act as champion for the reader, and to engage fully with the merits of any complaint. It implies a measure of “merit screening”. This process ensures that adjudication resources of the Press Ombud are used optimally and that complaints can be resolved as quickly as possible even without the need for adjudication. It is worth noting that only a fraction of complaints to the Press Council reach adjudication stage. Most complaints are resolved with the assistance of the Public Advocate.
15. It is within this context that the Public Advocate is enjoined by the Complaints Procedure to engage with the merits of complaints. He or she may be the advocate for the public but is not merely a mouthpiece for complainants. The Public Advocate gets appointed to this position by virtue of his/her journalistic experience and expertise of ethics and is more than qualified to form a view about the merits of the complaints.
16. The wording of the Complaints Procedure, in fact, requires the Public Advocate to form an opinion on the merits of the matter. In the appeal decision of Peter Moss vs Bhekisisa (Matter no. 9622, 29 April 2023), the Chair of the Appeals Panel had no difficulty in accepting that the Public Advocate is expected to also make a judgment call on the merits of matters in appropriate circumstances.
17. However, I believe there are three factors to be considered by the Public Advocate when applying this discretion to reject complaints:
17.1. Firstly, the Public Advocate’s role as champion of the reader requires some latitude to be given to complainants, especially where the complainant is not legally represented. In those cases, the Public Advocate’s function to assist the member of the public to formulate complaints would be more pronounced. It could even mean that the Public Advocate formulates a complaint that differs radically from the original complaint.
17.2. Secondly, the primary function of the Public Advocate is not to adjudicate or to decide finally on the merits of the application. That would render the offices of the Ombud and the Adjudication Panel redundant.
17.3. Lastly, rejection of a complaint on the basis that it does not constitute a prima facie breach of the Press Code is extraordinary in the sense that the publication is not even called upon to answer to the complaint. I have already expressed the view that the Press Council should be hesitant to close the door on complainants where there has not been an opportunity for the complainant to ventilate a complaint. (See: Roux vs News24, 28 August 2022).
18. Nothing prohibits the Public Advocate from making preliminary enquiries in the process of assessing the complaint, such as requesting more information or documents from a complainant.
19. “Prima facie” means on the face of it. In my view, the Complaints Procedure requires the Public Advocate to consider the allegations in a complaint as correct until shown otherwise. Phrased differently, the question is whether the complaint – if all the averments in the complaint are accepted to be correct for the moment – falls within the ambit of the Press Code and disclose a possible breach of the Press Code.
20. I stress that it is the factual or primary averments that need to be taken at face value in this exercise and not a complainant’s conclusions about the alleged breach of the Press Code. In concrete terms: Should a complainant allege a factual inaccuracy, it will always constitute a prima facie breach of the Press Code (unless the information before the Public Advocate shows that there is no factual inaccuracy). An allegation that there was no effective right of reply is a prima facie breach of the Press Code. So is an allegation that a publication published hate speech or exposed children to unnecessary harm.
21. If the complaint does not make averments that could lead to a finding of a breach of the Press Cod, there is no prima facie breach of the Press Code and the complaint ought not to be accepted. If such averments are made, the complaint should be accepted and the publication should be asked to respond. At this stage, the question is not whether it is likely that the Ombud would find in the complainant’s favour, but merely whether there is a possibility based on the facts.
22. Turning to the matter at hand, the Public Advocate declined the accept the complaint under the heading of “Provocative and misleading language” on the grounds that “revolt” does not necessarily refer to violence and the use of the words “cling on to power” was not improper within the context of Dr Jordaan’s reported earlier indication that he would not seek another term and the internal resistance reportedly being shown to another term.
23. The Public Advocate’s reasons cannot be faulted.
24. On the issue of the reportage of the alleged governance issues and Fifa Forward Projects that have not materialised, the complaint was two-pronged:
24.1. Clause 1.7. requires journalists to “verify the accuracy of doubtful information, if practicable; if not, this shall be stated”; and
24.2. Clause 1.9 requires journalists to “state where a report is based on limited information, and supplement it once new information becomes available”.
25. The complaint in terms of clause 1.9. has no merit on the face of the complaint. City Press made it abundantly clear that these are claims that have been made in a document authored by anonymous sources. It stated in so many words that it is merely an allegation contained in an anonymous document.
26. However, clause 1.7. raises arguable points and therefore a prima facie breach of the Press Code. If it was practicable to verify the claims and the publication simply did not verify the information, it would constitute a breach of the Press Code.
27. The Public Advocate said on the issue of verification: “If (City Press) put the allegations to Safa for comment, they would not be in breach of the Press Code.” As will be explained below, I agree. But the operative word is “if”. Without having more facts such as the actual media enquiry and without asking the publication for an explanation, there is a prima facie breach of the Press Code.
28. On the complaint of Dr Jordaan about absence of a right of reply, there was also a prima facie breach of the Press Code. For if it was true that City Press never approached Dr Jordaan for comment, it would amount to a breach of the Press Code. In rejecting the complaint, the Public Advocate recorded that he has not seen the questions posed by the journalist to the spokesperson. He asked, quite correctly and on-point, “Did it (the media enquiry) include the allegations against Mr Jordaan?” The fact that the question had to be asked shows that the complaint had to be accepted or further enquiries had to be addressed before rejecting the complaint.
29. I therefore accept the complaints about the alleged lack of verification and the alleged lack of a right to reply to Dr Jordaan for adjudication.
The media enquiry
30. After considering the initial submissions from the parties, I invoked clause 6.1.3. of the Complaints Procedure and required City Press and the complainants to furnish me with the media enquiry in question as well as the response sent to the journalist.
31. City Press provided me with the media enquiry sent on 25 October 2024. The following is of relevance:
31.1. The enquiry was addressed to Mr Mninawa Ntloko, spokesperson of Safa, to his official Safa e-mail address.
31.2. City Press said the enquiry was “for the attention of the Safa leadership and management”.
31.3. The first question was whether Dr Jordaan was aware of the document referred to.
31.4. The second question was whether Dr Jordaan has ambitions to stand for a fourth term, noting the allegations that he has already started campaigning behind the scenes.
31.5. The remainder of the media query detailed the allegations pertaining to the Fifa Forward Project funds. They were posed individually and comprehensively, each time asking: “Is it true? What is Safa’s response to these allegations?”
32. Tabane says Mr Ntloko responded to the enquiry via WhatsApp to City Press’ reporter with the following message, which was reproduced in full in the published article:
“We are not responding to documents and allegations made by ghosts. Please produce documents signed by someone. If you want to make serious allegations against someone, then you must put your name on it. Then, we can check the veracity of the claims, and we can respond. But we can’t be asked to respond to ghosts.”
33. The complaint took an unexpected turn when the complainants responded to my request for further information. A candidate attorney of Fairbridges Wertheim Becker responded by saying:
33.1. The complainants noted that the media enquiry was sent on Friday, 25 October at 23h33 while the article was published on Sunday, 27 October 2024. This time period was unreasonable.
33.2. The lawyers demanded proof of the WhatsApp response said to have come from their client. “It is not sufficient to quote what our clients allegedly said. We request that City Press attaches proof of the WhatsApp correspondence from our clients with a date and time.” (My underlining)
34. This response was sent to City Press. Tabane answered that the WhatsApp message was not in their possession anymore. This, he said, was because Mr Ntloko had the WhatsApp feature activated that cause the automatic erasing of messages after a certain period of time. “But it is important to point out that Mr Ntloko has never denied sending the message, or at least City Press is unaware of him having done so,” Tabane added.
35. In an even more unexpected twist, Fairbridges Wertheim Becker responded to this by saying:
35.1. “It is our instructions to place on record that our clients deny having responded to the questions transmitted via email by City Press on a WhatsApp forum and further deny having responded at all.”
35.2. It is “a well-established principle in law that he who alleges must prove”. The complainants therefore demanded proof of what their spokesperson allegedly said.
35.3. By way of emphasis, that Mr Ntloko is the spokesperson of Safa as an organisation and not that of Dr Jordaan, as stated from the outset of the complaint.
36. The last response was surprising in that the original complaint uttered no word about the extensive quotation of Safa reportedly declining to comment to allegations made by “ghosts”. Quite the contrary, the original complaint explicitly noted:
“Only the First Complainant (Safa) was contacted for a reply, in which the Spokesperson of the association replied.” (sic)
37. It was only once City Press provided the media enquiry that the complainants’ lawyers took a non-committal attitude of what Safa (their client) “allegedly” said or not. In other words, despite the earlier acknowledgement of a reply being sent, the complainants now said the spokesperson might have or might not have replied as quoted in the article, but they require proof that this was the reply.
38. It is, with respect, strange that attorneys acting on the instructions of Safa and Dr Jordaan did not at this juncture of the process state unambiguously that the quoted reply from Safa’s spokesperson was allegedly made up by City Press. It would take one call for the attorneys to their clients to ask, “did you say what City Press quoted you as saying?”, and get a simple “yes” or “no” instruction. If the answer was “no”, one would have expected the lawyers to clarify that they initially conceded the quoted reply in the complaint but has now discovered that this reply was completely made up by City Press and wanted to supplement the complaint.
39. And it was only after Tabane stated that it has never been in dispute that the spokesperson’s response was quoted correctly that the complainants took the new position – at variance with the original complaint – that Safa’s spokesperson never responded to the media query at all.
40. I have serious reservations whether the quoted legal principle is applied correctly in the complainant’s argument. In any event, the office of the Ombud is not a court of law and would not necessarily apply the law of evidence or procedures devised by the courts for motion proceedings. (See: Nage vs Sunday Times, 5 September 2023.) A robust approach with inquisitorial characteristics is called for. (See: National Arts Council vs The Citizen, 15 August 2022). I do not agree that there is any traditional onus or evidentiary burden on City Press to “prove” they received a specific response from the complainants – especially when it was raised for the first time at the end of proceedings. Moreover, I have no reason to disbelieve City Press’ journalist. I therefore accept that Safa’s spokesperson responded as quoted.
Right of reply
41. I return to the complaint of Dr Jordaan that he was not approached for comment.
42. The media enquiry, which has now been considered, makes it clear that Dr Jordaan was pertinently asked about his alleged ambitions for a fourth term and whether he was aware of the document being circulated. The media enquiry was also addressed for the attention of Safa’s leadership and management, which includes Dr Jordaan.
43. The complainants’ separation of Mr Ntloko as spokesperson for the organisation as opposed to being the spokesperson for Dr Jordaan is only partially correct.
44. Journalists deal with media engagement protocols on a daily basis. Organisations such as Safa appoint spokespersons to engage with journalists. Journalists are, as a general rule, expected to address queries to spokespersons and only spokespersons where such a person has been designated.
Spokespeople understandably get frustrated when journalists attempt to by-pass them by approaching individuals within an organisation directly.
45. Publications cannot be blamed for following media engagement protocols set by different organisations and institutions. (See: Dr Maiendra Moodley vs News24, 19 June 2022.)
46. The queries for Dr Jordaan were exclusively about his role at Safa. Had there been allegations of a strictly personal nature against Dr Jordaan, it might have been argued that an enquiry to Safa’s spokesperson is not sufficient. However, under these circumstances, I cannot find any fault with addressing the queries for Dr Jordaan through Safa’s spokesperson.
47. Spokespeople are trained professionals. If Mr Ntloko did not view it possible or appropriate for him to deal with the enquiries directed at Dr Jordaan, he ought to have said so and indicated to the journalist that Dr Jordaan is to be approached directly. Instead, his answer to the publication was that “we” will not respond to anonymous claims without any indication that the “we” did not include Dr Jordaan.
48. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Dr Jordaan is not seeking a right of reply in the complaint. The relief sought is “to retract (the) publication and transmit a formal apology to the complaints herein”. Had he requested an opportunity to respond and to clarify whether he is campaigning for a fourth term or not, I suspect City Press would have given him that opportunity even before the matter came for adjudication.
49. Lastly, there was a belated complaint that the time afforded to Safa for a reply was unreasonable. This did not form part of the original complaint in which the complainants pertinently stated that they were satisfied that a right of reply was given to Safa, but not Dr Jordaan.
50. There is no set time period that would constitute an acceptable time to respond. It is dependent on the nature of the enquiry. In this matter, Safa did not respond with a request for more time, but declined to comment on the basis that the claims were made by anonymous people. The fact that a response was given renders the issue of time periods moot.
51. For all the above reasons, the complaint about a breach of clause 1.8. of the Press Code cannot be upheld.
Failure to verify
52. Verification of claims is an important ethical consideration. Journalists cannot simply repeat claims or allegations of doubtful veracity and then say that this was what person X claimed. A news publication has an ethical duty not to be reduced to a mere copying machine or parrot for others. (See: Siyaya TV vs amaBhungane, 7 February 2023.)
53. The complainants focus on the following passage in the City Press report:
“According to the document, in 2018, Fifa, through the Fifa Forward Project, allocated $400 000 (R8 million) to Safa for the upgrade of facilities at the Safa Technical Centre, in the south of Johannesburg.
“Out of this amount, according to the document, $120 000 (R2.3 million) was supposedly spent on ablution facilities and a portable pavilion. However, these upgrades are not visible at the venue, according to this document.”
54. The complainants say City Press did not confirm the veracity of this information prior to publishing. “Nothing prohibited City Press from accessing the facilities in question to confirm the veracity of the information put before it by anonymous people, prior to publishing the article so that it can be in the best position to report on the affairs of the complainants in a balanced manner.”
55. Tabane says the complainants are still not asserting that the allegations are untrue.
56. Clause 1.7. of the Press Code requires verification of doubtful information where it is practicable. Imposing a duty on journalists to investigate and collate proof of all allegations to be reported on in the same way a private investigator, the police or prosecuting authority would, would have a chilling effect on journalism. The reality is that journalists do not have the resources, tools, powers, and capacity to verify the accuracy of all claims. Thus, there is no absolute obligation on journalists to verify all claims. It is only when such claim is doubtful and only insofar as it is practicable to do so.
57. I accept the complainants’ submission that it would, in principle, be possible for the journalist to visit the Safa Technical Centre (just as the complainants could have invited City Press to visit the premises to be shown the alleged falsity of the claims). However, it is less clear whether this would provide the verification demanded by the complainants: Would a journalist even know what to look for? Should the journalist visit every toilet and guess what “ablution facilities” were earmarked for an upgrade or not? Is a “portable pavilion” stored at the premises, or is it indeed portable? What “upgrades” were envisaged apart from the ablution facilities and how would the journalist know what part of the facilities were upgraded or not? Did Safa actually receive earmarked funds from the Fifa Forward Project and, if so, how much?
58. Only Safa can guide a journalist to explore these issues.
59. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to postulate what more the journalist could have done other than to put the allegations to Safa in full and to request clarification.
60. The media enquiry shows that this was done.
61. It is common cause between the parties that Safa did not respond to the contents of the media enquiry. The response received was to the effect that Safa declined to engage (or no response at all, according to the last version). Safa also does not address the merits of these allegations in its complaint to the Ombud or give any indication why the claims are doubtful or untrue.
62. Putting detailed allegations to a subject of critical reportage also performs the all-important function of verification: In Ramatlakane v Sunday Times and TimesLive (complaint 9443, 17 May 2022), it was held:
“A subject of critical reportage who is afforded an opportunity to respond to allegations also has a measure of responsibility to clarify bona fide misunderstandings. This is particularly applicable when a subject believes the allegations being posed to him or her is factually incorrect. If a subject – despite his or her belief that the journalist has the wrong end of the stick – chooses not to respond, to be sketchy in his or her response, or even to lead a journalist down the garden path where there was a real misapprehension, he or she does so at their own peril.”
63. Such responsibility is even more acute where a communication professional as opposed to a layperson is handling the query. A spokesperson knows exactly why the allegations are detailed for comment: The journalist intends reporting on those allegations.
64. If a complainant chooses not to engage with the claims in any meaningful way, they cannot complain that the publication failed to verify the claim.
Conclusion
65. The complaint is dismissed.
Appeal
The Complaints Procedure lays 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].
Herman Scholtz
Press Ombud
19 May 2025
