Department of Human Settlements (Free State Province) vs. News24

SUMMARY

This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

The Department of Human Settlements complained that the reporter was in breach of the Press Code for inviting employees of the Department (via email) to contact him with information relating to corruption and/or dodgy deals taking place in that department.

Senne Bogatsu, Director: Corporate Communication at the Department, said this email had apparently only been addressed to junior officials at the Department. He pointed out that Public Service Regulation 6(3) provided that an employee might not communicate with the media in an official capacity without the necessary permission and added that disciplinary steps should be taken against employees who did not comply with that provision.

The Department argued that the journalist had been inviting officials to transgress the law, which would have exposed them to disciplinary steps that might have led to their dismissal.

Retief made no finding on this matter, as his office was not mandated to act against a publication if a journalist’s behaviour (including his or her method of obtaining news) had not led to publication. He left the matter for the editor to handle as he saw fit.

THE RULING ITSELF

Complaint                                            

The Department of Human Settlements complains that the reporter, Pieter-Louis Myburgh, was in breach of the Press Code for inviting employees of the Department (via email) to contact him with information relating to corruption and/or dodgy deals taking place in that department.

Bogatsu says this email was apparently only addressed to junior officials at the Department. (In this correspondence, the reporter has requested officials to volunteer information to assist him to “further expose these corrupt dealings” at the Department.)

However, he says the Public Service Regulation 6(3) provided that an employee may not communicate with the media in an official capacity without the necessary permission, and adds that disciplinary steps shall be taken against employees who do not comply with this provision.

The Department argues that the journalist therefore was inviting officials to transgress the law, which would expose them to disciplinary steps that might lead to their dismissal – a fact of which Myburgh seemed to have been aware.

Bogatsu adds that Myburgh could have, but did not use the processes of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) – and concludes that, when previous reports by the journalist are taken into consideration relating to the Free State Provincial Government, “the attempt to illegally solicit information from employees is probably driven by a personal agenda”.

Analysis

When this complaint landed on my desk, it was noticeable that it was not aimed at any specific article, but rather at the content of the journalist’s email to the Department.

To get clarity on this matter, I have therefore sent the following email to the complainant:

Bogatsu’s response read as follows (unedited):

Based on this response, I merely need to repeat what I have already stated: This office is not mandated to act against a publication if a journalist’s behaviour (including his or her method of obtaining news) has not led to publication. Neither of the Press Council’s three official documents (its Constitution, Complaints Procedures and Press Code) makes allowance for such a scenario.

Myburgh’s email is a matter for the editor to handle as he sees fit.

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].

Johan Retief

Press Ombud