Parent Group Pretoria High School for Girls vs Daily Maverick (2)
Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August
30 October 2024
Finding: Complaint 31995
Headline:
Pretoria High School for Girls racism row — independent probe to be launched
Date of publication: 5 August 2024
Author: Nonkululeko Njilo
Particulars
This finding is based on a written complaint lodged by a group of parents representing a number of pupils at Pretoria High School for Girls, along with documents published on the website Politicsweb; a written reply on behalf of Daily Maverick by its journalist, Ms Nonkululeko Njilo; and a written response by the group of parents representing a number of pupils at Pretoria High School for Girls.
Complaint
The complainants submit that the article transgresses Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 3.1, 3.3 and 8.1 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;
“1.3 present only what may reasonably be true as fact; opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such; … ”
“3. The media shall:
“3.1 exercise care and consideration in matters involving the private lives of individuals. The right to privacy may be overridden by legitimate public interest;…
“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;…”
“8. In the spirit of Section 28.2 of the Bill of Rights* the media shall:
“8.1 exercise exceptional care and consideration when reporting about children. If there is any chance that coverage might cause harm of any kind to a child, he or she shall not be interviewed, photographed or identified without the consent of a legal guardian or of a similarly responsible adult and the child (taking into consideration the evolving capacity of the child); and a public interest is evident; …
“* Section 28.2 of the Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution says: ‘A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.’”
- Summary of article
1.1. The article reports that the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) is set to launch an independent investigation to determine whether a culture of racism exists at the Pretoria High School for Girls (PHSG) after a School Governing Body (SGB) disciplinary hearing cleared 12 pupils of misconduct.
1.1.1. According to the article, the probe will not investigate the 12 pupils who were previously suspended for statements in a “whites-only” WhatsApp group that allegedly contained racial connotations and displayed “microaggressions”, but will be a broader investigation into allegations of racism.
1.2. On August 2, the SGB reportedly found the implicated pupils not guilty on charges of violence and bullying, disruptive behaviour and violating school rules due to insufficient evidence.
1.2.1. GDE spokesperson Steve Mabona said that, according to the SGB, the content of the messages on the WhatsApp group was inconclusive. The SGB also found inconsistencies in the testimonies and that a “lack of solid evidence” from the WhatsApp group contributed to the SGB’s decision to find the learners not guilty.
1.3. Mabona further said that the decision to launch the probe was motivated by the fact that the SGB’s ruling does not mention discrimination against pupils even though “there has been a strong presumption of the existence of such at the school”.
1.3.1. According to the article, the probe is called in terms of Section 9(1) of the Gauteng Education Act 6 of 1995 which allows education MEC Matome Chiloane to appoint an inquiry into issues that are in the interest of education in the province. Its terms of reference will be communicated once an independent investigative body has been appointed.
1.4. The article further states that there have been at least two other racial incidents at the school, including in 2016 when pupils reportedly staged a protest against a long-standing rule that pupils with Afro hairstyles have to chemically straighten their hair because such hairstyles were considered untidy.
1.4.1. Several black pupils told Daily Maverick the previous week that they had seen leaked messages from the “whites-only” group that suggest they wanted “special treatment” and that they should “get over apartheid” or else South Africa would never move forward.
1.4.2. At the time of the 2016 incident, then Gauteng education MEC Panyaza Lesufi said he wanted to address the situation before it got out of hand. However, eight years later the school reportedly finds itself in the same situation.
1.5. Following the latest allegations of racism, the GDE placed principal Phillipa Erasmus on a three-month precautionary suspension. She allegedly failed to act on these allegations when they were brought to her attention last year.
1.5.1. Mabona was not available to comment on what Erasmus’s fate would be after the 12 pupils were cleared by the SGB’s disciplinary probe.
1.5.2. However, Chiloane’s spokesperson, Xolani Mkhwente, told Sowetan: “The principal’s suspension is a different labour relations issue and not [made] by the SGB, but by the HOD [head of department]. Her precautionary suspension will only be lifted by the HOD after the labour relations investigation.”
1.5.3. Chiloane appealed for calm after some education activists strongly objected to the outcome of the SGB’s disciplinary hearing and called for the school to be allowed to conduct its business before the September exams.
- Arguments
Parent Group Pretoria High School for Girls
2.1. The complainants submit that the article contains two important factual errors.
2.1.1. Firstly, they contend that the article misrepresents the charges and deny that any of the 12 pupils were charged with violence, bullying or disruptive behaviour.
2.1.2. They submit that the pupils were charged with expressing “inappropriate opinions” under the school’s learner Code of Conduct and Social Media Policy, which refers to “racism, sexism, sexual harassment, or public use of hate speech, or expression of opinions to cause spread of hate”.
2.1.3. They also submit that the pupils were charged under section 9.2.8.4, which refers to “any content that amounts to hate speech or discrimination … [and] include[s] comments that are threatening, harassing, illegal, obscene, defamatory, slanderous or hostile towards any individual or entity …”.
2.1.4. They state that all 12 pupils were found not guilty of these charges.
2.1.5. They add that the SGB also found that the charge that the prefects did not comply with certain clauses in the PHSG Student leadership policy was rendered “obsolete” as they were found not guilty of the two charges referred to in points 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 above.
2.1.6. The complainants further contend that the article misrepresents the reasons for the acquittal of the pupils and deny that it was “due to insufficient evidence”. They also take issue with Mabona’s quote that the pupils were acquitted because of “inconsistencies in the testimonies and lack of solid evidence”.
2.1.7. They state that the full text of the WhatsApp conversation was made available to the disciplinary panel and that all 12 pupils provided oral evidence to the inquiry.
2.1.8. They maintain that the 12 were found not guilty simply because the comments made in the WhatsApp group did not contravene the school’s social media policy nor did it constitute racism or hate speech of any kind.
2.2. Secondly, the complainants argue that the article misrepresents the reason for the launch of the GDE’s new inquiry.
2.2.1. They state that the reason offered by Mabona – “the report of the SGB’s ruling makes no mention of racism or discrimination against learners, whereas there has been a strong presumption of the existence of such at the school” – is false.
2.2.2. They contend that, as indicated in the ruling, the whole purpose of the inquiry was to investigate whether the content of the WhatsApp group’s messages was racist.
2.2.3. They believe that the respondent’s failure to interrogate Mabona’s comments allowed disinformation to be presented as if it were “factually sound”.
2.3. In light of these two errors, the complainants maintain that the article failed to comply with Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code and argue that these errors were “deeply prejudicial” to the 12 pupils concerned.
2.3.1. As a result, they submit, the article was also in breach of Clauses 3.1 and 3.3 of the Press Code.
2.4. The complainants further point out that the full record of the disciplinary hearing was published by Politicsweb[1] on August 2 – three days before Daily Maverick’s article. For this reason, they argue, the publication should have known that its article was inaccurate.
2.4.1. Alternatively, the publication should have requested a copy of the ruling from the GDE or PHSG.
2.5. The complainants add that many of the 12 pupils are under the age of 18 and are therefore children. As such, they suggest that “the distress” which the pupils suffered as a result of the article must be viewed in light of Section 28(2) of the Constitution.
2.6. In conclusion, the complainants refer to Clause 1.10 of the Press Code, which provides for redress, and request a full retraction of the article.
2.6.1. They also request Daily Maverick to state explicitly that the 12 pupils were found not guilty of racism; that they were never accused of violence, bullying and disruptive behaviour; that they were found not guilty because the content of the WhatsApp group did not amount to racism or hate speech and not because there was “insufficient” or “inconclusive” evidence; that
Mabona’s statement that the ruling does not mention racism or discrimination against pupils is untrue; and that, through these factual errors, the publication was misled by Mabona.
2.6.2. In addition, they demand that the publication and the journalist issue an apology to the 12 pupils and express remorse for any harm suffered.
2.6.3. Lastly, they request that the retraction and apology should be published on Daily Maverick’s website and on all its social media platforms.
Daily Maverick
2.7. In reply, the respondent states that it prides itself on being accurate and fair.
2.7.1. It says that the GDE is the authoritative body responsible for communication on behalf of schools in the province and adds that it also made several requests to the school for comment and requested to be put in contact with the SGB as well.
2.7.2. As it did not have access to the SGB or to the parents of the white pupils concerned, the publication states that it was forced to rely solely on information from the GDE, “which aligned with what parents and students had shared with [it]”. It asks who else it should have consulted if quoting the GDE was problematic.
2.8. The respondent further states that PHSG consistently referred it to the GDE and that the school did not correct any public statements made by the Department. The publication argues that this suggests that the school accepted the accuracy of those statements.
2.8.1. The respondent also argues that the complaints mentioned are not directly related to the publication, especially in view of the fact that the GDE has not retracted the statements in question. It recommends that the complainants’ concerns should be taken up directly with the GDE’s spokesperson.
2.9. Regarding the relief sought by the complainants, the respondent points out that it published several follow-up stories stating that the 12 pupils were found not guilty of racism and were cleared of any wrongdoing, and refers to two articles published on August 2[2] And August 5.[3]
2.9.1. It adds that it refrained from using information from other websites “as it goes against journalistic ethics, due to the risk of inaccuracies”.
2.9.2. It reaffirms its commitment to continue to cover the story in a fair and responsible manner, and says it will continue to try to contact all relevant parties “in the hope that they will state their side of the story”.
Parent Group Pretoria High School for Girls
2.10. In response, the complainants state that they do not believe the publication responds adequately to their complaint. Furthermore, they do not believe that the respondent’s reply raises any further issues which require a response.
2.10.1. They reiterate that they stand by their initial complaint.
- Analysis
3.1. Complaint one is that the article misrepresents the charges against the 12 white pupils who were suspended as well as the reasons for their acquittal by the SGB’s disciplinary inquiry.
3.1.1. In response, the respondent states that it made several requests to the school for comment and also requested to be put in touch with the SGB. In view of the fact that these attempts were unsuccessful, it relied solely in the end on the GDE for information.
3.1.2. The publication points out – quite correctly – that the GDE is the authority responsible for communication about schools in the province. Furthermore, the publication notes that the GDE’s information squared with that provided by some of the black parents and pupils.
3.1.3. Nevertheless, it is unclear why the publication did not also take account of the text of the disciplinary hearing published on the website, Politicsweb, on August 2, which provides details of the charges against the 12 suspended pupils and the reasons for their acquittal.[4]
3.1.4. In its response to the complainants, the publication merely states that it refrains from using information from other websites due to the risk of repeating inaccuracies.
3.1.5. While this is certainly a valid consideration, it does not explain why the publication did not even attempt to confirm the authenticity of the text published by Politicsweb and, instead, appeared to simply disregard it.
3.1.6. Furthermore, there are indeed instances when a publication refers to information published elsewhere and, when doing so, acknowledges the original source. In fact, Daily Maverick itself followed this convention in its article on August 5 when it published a quotation from the Sowetan newspaper (see point 1.5.2).
3.1.7. Of further concern is that, even if the respondent was unable to obtain the verdict of the disciplinary inquiry or was unaware of the documents published by Politicsweb before it ran its own article on August 5, it failed to publish a follow-up article when additional information subsequently become available on the charges against the pupils and the reasons for their acquittal.
3.1.8. This contradicts the publication’s declaration in its response to the complainants that it “will continue to try and contact all relevant parties in this matter in the hope that they will state their side of the story”.
3.1.9. Instead, the publication continued to rely unduly on the GDE’s account of the matter even when additional information became available.
3.1.10. And while it is beyond the purview of the Press Ombuds to investigate the veracity of Mabona’s comments on the charges and the reasons for the acquittal of the pupils, it would be remiss not to note that the Thabo Mbeki Foundation has questioned the accuracy of his comments on Newzroom Afrika in this regard.[5]
3.1.11. In light of the aforegoing, the publication did not sufficiently meet the requirements set out in Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code.
3.1.12. There is no compelling evidence that warrants an additional ruling in terms of Clause 1.3. The breaches of the Press Code have been sufficiently addressed under Clauses 1.1 and 1.2.
3.2. Complaint two is that the complainants believe the article misrepresents the reason for the GDE’s new inquiry into racism at the school and they dispute the reason offered by Mabona for the launch of the inquiry.
3.2.1. Although the publication unsuccessfully tried to obtain information directly from the school and its SGB, again it is unclear why the publication did not take account of the text of the disciplinary hearing published by Politicsweb on August 2 (see points 3.1.3 to 3.1.9 above).
3.2.2. Instead, the respondent chose to continue to rely solely on the account of the GDE and Mabona even when additional information subsequently became available.
3.2.3. And although it is outside the jurisdiction of the Press Ombuds to investigate the veracity of Mabona’s comments, it is worth noting here once again that the Thabo Mbeki Foundation has raised questions about the accuracy of his comments on Newzroom Afrika about the reasons for the general inquiry into racism at the school.
3.2.4. In light of the above, the publication did not sufficiently meet the requirements set out in Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code.
3.2.5. There is no compelling evidence that warrants an additional ruling in terms of Clause 1.3 as the breaches of the Press Code have been sufficiently addressed under Clauses 1.1 and 1.2.
3.3. There is no merit in Complaint three that the article is in breach of Clause 3.1 of the Press Code. There is undoubtedly legitimate public interest in an inquiry into allegations of a culture of racism at a government school.
3.3.1. Related to this complaint is the claim that the dignity and reputation of the 12 pupils were not sufficiently taken into consideration as required by Clause 3.3 of the Press Code.
3.3.2. No compelling evidence is provided to support this claim. The complainants essentially suggest that, because the article breached Clauses 1.1 to 1.3 of the Press Code, the article was ipso facto therefore also in breach of Clause 3.3.
3.3.3. However, even though some aspects of the article may be open to question, it was nevertheless in the public interest to report on an inquiry announced by the GDE on allegations of a culture of racism at a government school.
3.4. There is no evidence to support Complaint four that the article is in breach of Clause 8.1 of the Press Code.
3.4.1. As noted, it is in the public interest to report on an inquiry launched by the GDE into a culture of racism at a school.
3.4.2. Furthermore, none of the pupils was interviewed or identified, which avoids causing unnecessary harm to any of the children involved.
- Finding
Complaint one: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 is upheld for the reasons set out in points 3.1.3 to 3.1.9 of my Analysis.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 is dismissed. The breaches of the Press Code have been sufficiently addressed under Clauses 1.1 and 1.2; there is no compelling evidence that warrants an additional ruling in terms of Clause 1.3.
Complaint two: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 is upheld for the reasons set out in points 3.2.1 to 3.2.3 of my Analysis.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 is dismissed in view of the fact that the breaches of the Press Code have been sufficiently addressed under Clauses 1.1 and 1.2. There is no compelling evidence to warrant an additional ruling under Clause 1.3.
Complaint three: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 3.1 and 3.3 is dismissed (see points 3.3 to 3.3.3 of my Analysis).
Complaint four: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 8.1 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.4 to 3.4.2 of my Analysis.
Firstly, Daily Maverick is required to publish an apology to the complainants for breaching Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 for misrepresenting the charges against the 12 pupils who were suspended and the reasons for their acquittal by the SGB’s disciplinary inquiry as well as for misrepresenting the reasons for the GDE’s new inquiry into racism at the school, and should:
- be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed or, in the event of such an application, after that ruling;
- be published online, on Daily Maverick’s landing page for five days, as well as on all platforms where the article was published;
- be published with a headline including the words “apology” and “12 pupils of Pretoria High School for Girls” (or a recognisable alternative);
- be published with a link to the updated online article;
- refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
- end with the sentence, “Visit presscouncil.org.zafor the full finding”;
- be published with the logo of the Press Council; and
- be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud named below.
Secondly, the updated article should publish a note under the headline: “NOTE: This article has been updated after a finding by the Deputy Press Ombud. See EDITOR’S NOTE below.” The “EDITOR’S NOTE: Update and apology to 12 pupils of Pretoria High School for Girls” should state when and how the article has been updated.
Thirdly, the final update to the article should be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud prior to publication.
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
30 October 2024
[1] Politicsweb describes itself as “a website focused on the news and politics of Southern Africa. It aims to provide its readers with breaking news, informed comment and opinion, and easy access to key online resources” (see https://www.politicsweb.co.za/about).
[2] See “Gauteng education department ‘disappointed’ as 12 Pretoria High School for Girls learners cleared” (https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2024-08-02-pretoria-racism-department-disappointed-as-schoolgirls-found-not-guilty/).
[3] The August 5 article is the subject of this adjudication.
[4] See https://www.politicsweb.co.za/documents/twelve-pupils-cleared-of-gdes-racism-charges–phsg, published in the Politicsweb section on “DOCUMENTS”.
[5] See https://press-admin.voteda.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/President-Mbekis-Report-1.pdf