Appeal Decision: News24 vs Black First, Land First

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, ‘Prepare for the worst’, says Gigaba’s advisor (published on 29 April 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 Prof Chris Malikane (an adviser to the Minister of Finance, Malusi Gigaba) had warned South Africans to be prepared for the worst if radical economic transformation was to fail. He was speaking at Blacks in Dialogue, which was organised by the Black First Land First (BLF) movement. He was inter alia quoted as saying, “We need a two-thirds majority to change the Constitution. Otherwise, to achieve what we want to achieve, we need to go that route [take up arms]. Let’s try two-thirds. I don’t like war.”

BLF leader Andile Mngxitama complained that the story:

• incorrectly and misleadingly quoted Malikane as saying that, if the Constitution could not be changed, “to achieve what we want to achieve, we need to go that route [take up arms]…”; and
• did not reflect the fact that Malikane was responding to a question, and that this issue was not a part of his speech.

The Ombud directed News24 to apologise to Malikane in particular, and to the public in general, for misleadingly and unfairly creating the impression that he had favoured the taking up of arms to solve the land reform issue.

News24 then applied for leave to appeal.

Judge Ngoepe agreed with the Ombud’s ruling. He said Malikane never called for taking up arms. Instead, he reportedly wanted change through a democratic process. Dismissing the application, he concluded: “I also think that the applicant underestimates the seriousness of a call to arms and, as the Ombud says, the impact the story might have on the individual. As the Ombud correctly observes, the climate is not right for anybody to be seen to be making such a call.”

THE RULING ITSELF

In the matter of

NEWS 24                                                                                                       APPLICANT

AND

[1]     Media 24 (“applicant”) seeks leave to appeal a Ruling of the Press Ombud given in favour of Black First, Land First movement (“respondent”), dated 19 May 2017.The complaint followed an article by the applicant published on 30 April 2017 in the City Press with the headline: “’Prepare for the worst’, says Gigaba’s adviser”.  The article was a report on what the views were of the Minister’s adviser, Professor Malikane, on the economy of the country, including economic transformation and nationalization of key sectors of the economy.  The professor was speaking at an event which had been organized by the respondent.  Amongst other things, the article said Professor Malikane said the following: “We need a two-thirds majority to change the Constitution.  Otherwise, to achieve what we want to achieve, we need to go that route [take up arms]. …. A decision to take up arms would have to be discussed and not be a decision made by an individual”. (Own emphasis).

[2]     The respondent’s complaint was that Prof Malikane never called for arms.   He never uttered the words highlighted above.  Respondent argues that on the contrary, the professor spoke against a call for arms, which had been made by a member of the audience.

[3]     In its defence, the applicant argued that the fact that the words “take up arms” were in brackets denoted that the words were not the Professor’s, but the author’s, “and that this was a reference to a statement made by someone else.  On the very same quote, City Press adds the rest of Prof Malikana’s statement which reveals that he is against the idea of taking up arms, and that he prefers a democratic process”. The explanation given is, at best, self-contradictory.  I don’t understand how the so-called “author’s quotes” convey a message that the professor was against the taking up of arms.  It is entirely inconsistent with the assertion that the article sought to convey that he was against the taking up of arms.  The problem is that if the article purports to convey that Prof Malikane wants a change through democratic process, it in the same breath conveys that he is calling for arms.  It is also not clear how the author’s quote, being a call to arms, clarifies professor’s view of change through democratic processes.  The article also failed to mention that reference to arms was in response to questions from the audience.

[4]     I have considered what the Ombud says in his Ruling, and I agree fully with the findings.  The explanation given by the applicant is so far from convincing that there are no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; that being the case, the application should be dismissed.  As far as the sanction is concerned, it could only be interfered with if the Ombud misdirect himself or it was grossly inappropriate; there is none of that.  I also think that the applicant underestimates the seriousness of a call to arms and, as the Ombud says, the impact the story might have on the individual. As the Ombud correctly observes, the climate is not right for anybody to be seen to be making such a call.

[5]     For the reasons I give above, as also for those given by the Ombud, the application is dismissed.

Dated this 19^th day of July 2017

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel