Daily Maverick vs Parent Group Pretoria High School for Girls (2)
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: 31995/08/2024
___________________________________________________________________
DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
___________________________________________________________________
- Daily Maverick (applicant) applies for leave to appeal the Ruling of the Deputy Press Ombud of the Press Council of South Africa, dated 30 October 2024. It was a ruling on a complaint by Parent Group Pretoria High School for Girls (respondent). The complaint was against an article published by the applicant on 5 August 2024, with the headline “Pretoria High School for Girls racism row – independent probe to be launched.” The respondent represented a group of pupils accused of racism at the school. The respondent’s complaint was that the article breached some clauses in the Press Code, such as clauses 1.1, 1.2.
- The article stated that the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) was to launch an investigation to determine whether a culture of racism existed at the school after the School Governing Body (SGB) disciplinary hearing cleared a group of 12 pupils alleged to have exchanged WhatsApp messages with racial connotations. The article said the pupils were found not guilty of charges of violence and bullying, disruptive behaviour and violating school rules; secondly, the article gave reasons for which the pupils were acquitted. The respondent’s complaint was that both the charges and the reasons for the acquittal were incorrectly given in the article. I return later to the charges on which the pupils were acquitted as reported in the article, as well as the alleged reasons for the acquittal because the dispute in this application is about these two aspects.
- In his Ruling, the Deputy Press Ombud dismissed a number of complaints; however, he held that the applicant had incorrectly stated the charges of which the girls were charged and acquitted. Secondly, he held that the reasons for the acquittal were also incorrectly stated in the article. To resolve the dispute, one should start by simply comparing the charges as they appeared in the charge sheet as well as the reasons for the acquittal given by the disciplinary hearing on the one hand, and, on the other hand, those stated in the article. I set out both in paragraphs 4 and 5 respectively.
- The charges and reasons for acquittal by the disciplinary inquiry
- The relevant extract of the charge sheet, as contained in the ruling of the disciplinary inquiry, reads:
“6. All twelve learners were charged as follows:
6.1 Your daughter (Learner) was part of a WhatsApp group that allegedly expressed inappropriate opinions …” (thereafter followed details of other possible alleged transgressions, but none of which included violent behaviour, bullying or disruptive behaviour.
- As for the reasons, the respondent presented the following as an extract of the verdict.
“6.8 In the premises, it is our considered view that with respect to the two main charges, all twelve learners are ‘NOT GUILTY’ ….
6.9 A discussion of charge 3 would have become apposite if there was a finding of guilt on either of the first two charges. As a result, our finding renders it obsolete.”
- The charges and reasons for acquittal as stated in the applicant’s article:
- The following are the charges the article said the girls were charged with (and acquitted of): “On Friday, due to insufficient evidence, the SGB found the implicated pupils not guilty on charges of violence and bullying, disruptive behaviour and violation of school rules.”
- Once more regarding the reasons, the article quoted the following which the applicant said came from a spokesperson of the GDE, Mr Steve Mabona: “However, according to the SGB, the content from the WhatsApp groups was found to be inconclusive and did not substantiate the charges of violence, bullying or disruptive behaviour. The SGB’s ruling further stated inconsistencies in the testimonies and lack of solid evidence from the WhatsApp group contributed to the decision of the SGB to find the learners not guilty.” Here too reference to “the charges of violence, bullying or disruptive behaviour” irked the respondent.
- The difference between the nature of the charges as well as the reasons for the acquittal mentioned in the disciplinary inquiry on the one hand, and those stated by the applicant on the other hand, needs no further elucidation. The Deputy Press Ombud’s finding that there is a difference, is therefore correct. In any case, the applicant, both before the Deputy Press Ombud and in its grounds of appeal, does not contest this; this application must therefore be adjudicated on the basis that both the charges and reasons in the SGB’s disciplinary inquiry are not the same as those stated in the article. One need not scrutinize the entire hearing record or ruling of the SGB inquiry to establish this.
- In his Ruling the Deputy Press Ombud refers to the above complaint as complaint one, summing it up as follows:
“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.”
As said earlier, he upheld this complaint, finding that the applicant breached clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Code. I must look at his reasons as well as the applicant’s arguments in the application to determine whether the application has reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Mr Richard Wilkinson made submissions on behalf of the respondent to oppose this application. I am afraid I did not find his submissions helpful, with the possible exception of one point I will refer to later. I find his views about Mr Steve Mabona, the GDE’s spokesperson, to be subjective, launching wild attacks on him. If this application were to be dismissed, it would certainly not be because of Mr Wilkinson’s submissions. The only point of possible merit he made was that “the full record of the WhatsApp’s was available on Politicsweb” – see later. It is important to note that the results of the SGB’s inquiry were published on 2 August 2024 in Politicsweb, while the applicant’s article was published on 5 August 2024.
Reasons by the Deputy Press Ombud for his Ruling
- While appreciating the applicant’s argument that it had unsuccessfully sought comment from the school and to be put in touch with the SGB, the Deputy Press Ombud says it is nevertheless “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 the acquittal”. Furthermore, he dismissed the excuse by the applicant that it refrains from using information from other websites due to the risk of repeating inaccuracies. He rejected this excuse for two sound reasons. Firstly, he pointed out that the applicant did quote from Sowetan newspaper. Secondly, he says the excuse “does not explain why the (applicant) did not even attempt to confirm the authenticity of the text published by Politicsweb and, instead, appeared to simply disregard it.”
Before considering other reasons by the Deputy Press Ombud, it is appropriate at this stage to refer to the applicant’s argument in its grounds of appeal in response to the above criticism. The applicant says it is not true that it “did not attempt to confirm the authenticity of the text published by Politicsweb after the story in question was published. The Politicsweb article was published on Friday, 2 August 2024 …. Later on the same day after seeing the documents the reporter reached out to the GDE ….” (Own emphasis). The impression created here is that the reporter saw the Politicsweb on 2 August 2024 (some days before the applicant’s article was published on 5 August 2024). Yet earlier, on the very same page, the following had been stated to suggest that on the day of the article, the journalist was not aware of the charges in the Politicsweb: “The reporter does not typically follow Politics Web, she initially missed the documents it published. These documents contain the charges against the 12 learners but were not reported as part of a full story ….”
If there is no contradiction between the two portions, I unreservedly apologize to the applicant; but I hereby assure the applicant that this would not be the reason for the dismissal of the application. To me, the reasons given by the Deputy Press Ombud canvassed earlier, are sufficient, individually and collectively, to dismiss the application anyway.
- The other telling reason against the applicant given by the Deputy Press Ombud is this: even if as on 5 August the applicant was not aware of the documents published by Politicsweb or was unable to obtain the verdict of the SGB’s disciplinary inquiry, it failed to publish a follow-up article after additional information became available regarding the real charges and the reasons, this despite its response to the complaint that it would “continue to try and contact all relevant parties in this matter in the hope that they will state their side of the story”. The follow-up article could have corrected the impression, amongst others, that the girls were charged for violent conduct.
- The application lacks reasonable prospects of success; it is therefore dismissed.
Dated this 10th day of February 2025.
Judge B M Ngoepe (Retired Judge President), Chair, Appeals Panel