Daily Maverick vs Parent Group Pretoria High School for Girls (1)
BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA
In the matter between
Daily Maverick Applicant
and
Parent Group Pretoria High School for Girls Respondent
Matter no: 31990/08/2024
___________________________________________________________________
DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
___________________________________________________________________
- This is an application by Daily Maverick (applicant) for leave to appeal a particular finding by the Deputy Press Ombud in his Ruling of 28 October 2024. The Parent Group Pretoria High School for Girls (respondent) had lodged a complaint with the Press Ombud against an article published by the applicant on 31 July 2024 with the headline “Race scandal ‘It’s heartbreaking’, says Pretoria Girls High School parent as school faces fresh allegations of racism.” As the headline indicates, the article was about allegations of racism at the school and in doing so, referred to some previous allegations of discrimination. It is about this reference to previous alleged discrimination that this application is really about; that being the case, there will be no need for me to go into all aspects of the dispute.
- The respondent complained that the article violated clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code. The Ruling dismissed all the complaints but two. In the first one, described as complaint four, it held that the applicant’s article was in breach of clause 1.1; a sanction was then imposed. It is only against this finding that the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Appeals Panel and I therefore limit myself to it.
- For leave to appeal to be granted, the applicant must show reasonable prospects of success. This is what I must now assess.
- As I said earlier, this application is about one particular finding by the Deputy Press Ombud; the finding was in respect of what was said to be the fourth complaint. The complaint was against the following statement in the article, which referred to the past:
“In the racism incident in 2016, pupils staged a protest …” (Own emphasis). The respondent objected to the statement that there was a racism incident in 2016. It says that, for the reasons I discuss later, there was never a finding that there was such an incident. The Deputy Press Ombud’s reasoning is succinct and clear:
“There are indeed grounds for this complaint. The publication cannot make an unqualified reference to ‘the racism incident’ when an investigation did not find any evidence of racism. There is a significant difference between allegations of racism and a confirmed incident of racism, and this distinction should be clearly acknowledged and reflected.”
He accordingly held that clause 1.1 was breached, and imposed a sanction.
- It appears that there was an investigation conducted by a law firm commissioned by the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) to investigate the 2016 racism claim. In its grounds of appeal, the appellant relies on the findings of that law firm; in particular, on the following paragraph of their report:
“5.1.1 Findings and Recommendations
It is our finding that Educator 1’s act of illustrating developments during the Apartheid era in her geography lesson by solely using Black learners was inappropriate, offensive and resulted in the Black learners in her class feeling humiliated and embarrassed. As such we find her actions to have been racially discriminatory”.
- In response, the respondent says that there was never a disciplinary inquiry held against the educator, and that the investigation by the law firm was not a disciplinary inquiry where the veracity of the witnesses’ testimony could be tested under cross-examination. It is then stated that “the body responsible for conducting (the disciplinary inquiry) namely, the Gauteng Department of Education … withdrew the charges” against the teacher concerned. The respondent then went on to say that in the event the applicant did not accept the above as common cause, a copy of the letter (withdrawing the charges) would be provided. I must consider the matter on the basis that there is indeed such a letter withdrawing the charges; I do so for three reasons. Firstly, it is highly improbable that such an undertaking would be made if the letter did not exist; secondly, 8 years later, there is no indication that a departmental disciplinary inquiry was held; thirdly, the applicant has not indicated any disagreement with the statement that the charges were indeed withdrawn, or demanded the production of the letter withdrawing the charges.
- I agree with the Deputy Press Ombud’s finding and the reasons he gives. What he says is that it should not have been stated as a fact that there was a “racism incident”; if the article wanted to mention the incident concerned, it should have referred to it as “alleged” racism incident. The applicant elevated the findings of a law firm too highly, which it should not have, particularly given the fact that the department withdrew the charges. What is more, the article does not mention that the finding of a “racism incident” was made in a report by a law firm. The situation was exacerbated in the paragraph that followed where it is stated: “Now, eight years later, the school finds itself in the same (racism) situation”. This is quite damaging.
The lawyers’ report is like any other source; what it says remains a mere allegation. The department appreciated this point. They knew that they could not dismiss the educator concerned merely on the basis of the lawyers’ report, without instituting a disciplinary inquiry. To report as a fact that there was a racism incident in 2016, when there was a mere allegation from a source, flies in the face of clause 1.1 which requires accurate reporting.
- For the above reasons, I find that there is no reasonable prospects of success on appeal; the application is therefore dismissed.
Dated this 8th day of February 2025.
Judge B M Ngoepe (Retired Judge President) Chair, Appeals Panel