Juwairiya Kaldine v The Mail & Guardian
BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA
In the matter between
Juwairiya Kaldine Appellant
and
The Mail & Guardian Respondent
Matter no: 31781/04/2024
___________________________________________________________________
DECISION
___________________________________________________________________
- This is an appeal by Councillor Juwairiya Kaldine of the City of Johannesburg (the appellant) against a Ruling of the Deputy Press Ombud dated 12 September 2024. The Ruling had dismissed the appellant’s complaint against the Mail & Guardian (respondent) in respect of an article published on 4 April 2024 online and in print on 5 April 2024. The headline to the article read: “PA councillor ‘fraudulently’ transferred land to taxis”. The respondent said the article was based on a letter it had received from a civic organization in Eldorado Park, known as the Community Accountability Gatekeepers (CAG). The essence of the article was that the appellant had granted permission to a taxi association in the area to occupy a vacant piece of land; the appellant countered that she never did so, and that all she did was to write a letter to say that she had no objection against the taxi association occupying the land.
- Initially the complaint, to which the applicant’s political party, (the Patriotic Alliance) was also party, was much wider and raised several issues, including objection against the headline itself. The Ruling dismissed all the complaints, after which the applicant sought and obtained leave to appeal against it. Leave to appeal was, however, granted in respect of a very narrow issue alluded to above namely: whether the applicant granted the taxi association permission to occupy the vacant land (as contended for by the respondent), or whether she merely stated in her letter that she had no objection against the occupation. This is the narrow issue to be resolved in this appeal.
- To resolve this, we must compare the relevant statement objected against in the article, with what the appellant’s letter, dated 14 December 2023, says.
3.1 The article stated: “Kaldine confirmed authoring the letter granting permission to the association to occupy the vacant land ….” (Own emphasis)
3.2 The letter, on the other hand read: “I have no objection that the association is occupying a portion of stand number … for their taxis where a temporary structure (shelters) will be erected.” (Own emphasis).
The respondent’s contention is that the letter of no objection amounted to granting permission to occupy, while the applicant’s says it did not. Well, properly construed, does the letter grant permission to occupy the land in question?
- In support of the respondent’s case, Mr KoKo advanced two arguments.
4.1 Firstly, he said it was a matter of semantics to distinguish between the two statements; he argued that saying “I have no objection against the occupation” amounted to saying “I hereby grant the permission to occupy”. The argument cannot be correct; it would go against the ordinary meaning of English words. The Oxford South African Pocket Dictionary describes the verb “grant” as follows: “agree to give something to someone or allow them to do something” (own emphasis), while to “object” means “express disapproval or opposition”; in the present context, the appellant expresses the converse, namely, the lack of objection; she certainly does not purport to give or allow any occupation. Thus, to “grant” and “no objection” are two different concepts which Mr Koko is conflating; distinguishing between them is not a matter of semantics as he suggests. Nowhere in the letter does the applicant say she “grants” the permission to occupy. Elevating “no objection” to occupation to “granting” permission to occupy is too huge a jump. There would be chaos in the property industry if having “no objection” were to be elevated to “granting permission” to occupy.
4.2 The second argument by Mr Koko is that regard must be had to context. The context he is referring to is the fact that subsequent to the issuance of the appellant’s letter, the taxi association occupied the land and built some structures without the applicant or some authorities intervening. If on 14 December 2023 the applicant’s letter did not grant permission to occupy at all but merely stated, as it clearly did, that she had no objection, those subsequent developments could not retrospectively change the clear words “no objection” in the letter; they would remain a mere “no objection”. Mr Koko’s argument results from the proverbial exercise of so-called wise hindsight.
- Mr Feltham, also arguing for the respondent, sought to rely on the following paragraph in the Deputy Ombud’s Ruling:
“The letter’s central statement is indeed, that she has no objection to the land being used. However, it goes on to say that three months’ notice should be given by the city, via her office, if the city later wants to develop the site. This seems to go further than simply expressing a lack of objection, assuming a direct role in a possible tenancy or lease. However, the statement is not quite clear, and in the absence of further details, I do not feel too much should be read into it.” (Own emphasis). It is not clear which statement is said to be “not quite clear”; It certainly cannot be the statement “I have no objection” because that one is very clear. The context suggests that what is said to be “not quite clear” is the referencing to the notice by the city if they were to later want to develop the site. That referencing being “not quite clear”, cautions the Ruling itself, too much should not be read into it (to elevate the “no objection” to the “granting of permission” to occupy). The said paragraph therefore does not assist the respondent’s case.
- In stating as a fact that the appellant granted permission to occupy, the respondent could not have reasonably relied on the information from the civic organization because the respondent was, at the time of writing the article, in possession of the appellant’s letter of 14 December 2023 which the respondent actually quoted verbatim (but which said something different).
- For all the reasons stated, it is our view that the respondent, in stating as a fact that the applicant granted a taxi association permission to occupy the vacant piece of land, acted in breach of clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.7 of the Press Code. The relief sought by the applicant was a retraction and an apology. We believe this to be an appropriate sanction. As submitted by Mr Cilliers for the appellant, the statement must have been damaging to the applicant who is a city councillor.
- The following Order is therefore made:
8.1 The appeal succeeds; the Deputy Ombud’s Ruling dismissing the above complaint is hereby set aside, and replaced by the following finding: The Mail & Guardian, by stating that Councillor Juwairiya Kaldine granted a taxi association permission to occupy a vacant piece of land in Eldorado Park, Johannesburg, contravened clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.7 of the Press Code;
8.2 The Mail & Guardian must retract the statement and apologize to Councillor Juwairiya Kaldine;
8.3 The Mail & Guardian must, within 7 working days of receipt of this Decision, write and submit a draft of the retraction and apology to the Executive Director of the Press Council who shall immediately transmit it to the appellant for comment;
8.4 In the event the applicant and the respondent disagree on the draft’s wording, the Executive Director shall determine the appropriate version for publication;
8.5 The retraction and apology must be published with appropriate prominence in print and online, with a headline which includes “retraction”, “apology” and “Councillor Kaldine”, and with the Press Council’s logo.
8.6 The Executive Director to determine the date of the publication of the retraction and the apology.
Dated this 3rd day of February 2025.
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel
Mr P Mann, Member, Appeals Panel, Public Representative
Mr M Sanglay, Member, Appeals Panel, Press Representative
_______________________________________________________________
For the Appellant: Mr C Cilliers
For the Respondent: Mr K Koko and Mr L Feltham
