Appeal Decision: Jane Abongdia vs Daily Dispatch

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, R3m demand for plagiarised publication: masters supervisor admits to cribbing (published on 30 November 2017).

This ruling by the Chair of the Appeals Panel Judge Bernard Ngoepe was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

The article said that a former master’s student at the University of Fort Hare (UFH) had demanded R3-million in damages for alleged plagiarism by Dr Jane Abongdia and her husband Dr John Wankha Foncha. The student claimed that they (especially Abongdia, her supervisor) had presented her work as their own in an edition of the Journal of Social Science, published in 2014. UFH spokesman Kgotso Moabi reportedly said a tribunal found Abongdia (and not her husband) guilty of plagiarism after she had admitted to it.

Abongdia complained that the statement that a university’s tribunal had found her guilty of plagiarism after she had admitted to it was untrue and unfair; that the story omitted to state that the university had exonerated her; and that the journalist was biased, as the article did not contain her side of the story.

The Ombud said he had obtained the relevant documentation from the university, on condition that he kept the contents thereof confidential. “I am at liberty, though, to state that I am entirely satisfied that the reportage was justified,” he said.

Abongdia applied for leave to appeal against the Ombud’s dismissal of her complaint.

Judge Ngoepe agreed with the Ombud, adding it was important to note that the university’s spokesperson had confirmed that the Abongdia had admitted to the said infraction. He took into account that the university’s spokesperson gave the information to the journalist. The issue was not whether the contents were true or not – journalists reported on court documents as they found them, he remarked.

The application was dismissed.

THE RULING ITSELF

In the matter between:

JANE ABONGDIA                                                                                               APPLICANT

AND

1.         Daily Dispatch (“respondent”) published a story on 30 November 2017 with the headline “R3m demand for plagiarised publication.” The story was based on an claim by one Nomalizo Mazwayi that Jane Abongadia (“applicant”) had published an academic article in which she had plagiarised from Mazwayi’s work.  The latter was a Masters student under the supervision of the applicant. The story went on to say that Mazwayi had served summons for the payment of R3m against the applicant and the university concerned (the University of Fort Hare). The applicant lodged a complaint against the respondent on the ground, inter alia, that the story was biased

2.         The applicant’s compaint is accurately summed up by the Ombud in his Ruling dated 12 July 2018.  She says the

“l     statement that a university tribunal has found her guilty of plagiarism after she had admitted to it was untrue and unfair;

l       the story omitted to state that the university … has exonerated her; and

l       the journalist was biased, as the article did not contain her side of the story.”

3.         In its defence, the respondent insisted that it had obtained the information from the university spokesperson who, amongst others, said that the applicant had admitted plagiarizing, and even apologized to Ms Mazwayi. This was, of course, contrary to the applicant’s case that she denied doing so, and that she was exonerated by a special committee of the university. The respondent therefore refused to remove the story.

4.         The Ombud asked for, and obtained, a copy of the particulars to Ms Mazwayi’s combined summons; which confirmed that Ms Mazwayi had taken legal action against the applicant and others.  It became clear to him that the reportage was accurate and justified.  I also add that it is important to note that the university’s spokesperson confirmed that the applicant admitted to the said infraction.

5.         In her application, the applicant argues that the Ombud erred by “rejecting the complaint based soleley on the contents of the documentation obtained from the university without affording the complainant the opportunity to consider the contents of the documentation and responding whether the contents of the dcoumentation are true and correct”. Firstly, the documents speak for themselves; secondly, the issue is not whether the contents are true or not.  Journalists report on court documents as they find them.  The big problem for the applicant remains what the university spokesperson said to the journalist.

6.         It is clear that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; the application is therefore dismissed.

Dated this 12^th day of September 2018

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel