Appeal Decision: Deshi Ngxanga vs. Volksblad

SUMMARY

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 headline to the story in dispute read, headlined Betaal, hoor hoë wat eis los – Regskoste is vermors (published on 18 August 2016).

The story said that Deshi Ngxanga, municipal manager of the Dawid Kruiper municipality in Upington, had received a claim letter for wasted legal costs after he did not follow up on his defamation case concerning allegations regarding his irregular appointment as municipal manager.

The Ombud dismissed Ngxanga’s complaint that story, inaccurately and without verification, stated that:

• he had received a claim letter for wasted legal cost from Khumalo;
• his lawyers had asked two magistrates to recuse themselves – while neither he nor his lawyer ever appeared in court regarding a case involving Khumalo;
• he had instructed his subordinates to justify his appointment on radio and that he had approved the expenditure incurred;
• he had claimed that he possessed a certificate in municipal finance; and
• Patrick Williams, the municipal spokesman, was not available to respond to allegations – he says the newspaper never contacted Williams.

Ngxanga then applied for leave to appeal.

Judge Ngoepe dismissed the application, inter alia because the journalist went out of her way to secure some comment from Williams. Moreover, a radio interview had conveyed that Ngxanga did have the necessary qualifications at the time of his appointment.

He said that Ngxanga, in his application for leave to appeal, attached affidavits from two people to bolster his case.  “It is a pity that they were not submitted to the Ombud,” the judge concluded.

THE RULING ITSELF

DESHI NGXANGA                                                                                       APPLICANT

versus

[1]     Mr Deshi Ngxanga (“applicant”) wants to appeal the Ruling of the Press Ombud dated 27 September 2016, in which his complaint against the Volksblad (“respondent”) was dismissed.  The Ruling was on a complaint lodged by the applicant against respondent following an article by the respondent with the headline “Betaal, hoor hoë wat eis los”; the sub-head read: “regskoste is vermors”.

[2]     The substance of the article was that the applicant, a municipal manager in Upington, had irregularly been appointed and that he did not have the requisite qualifications.  He tried to sue the head of a Non-Governmental Organization but failed to follow the matter through; as a result, he incurred legal costs which, according to the article, he had to pay.

[3]     The applicant’s complaints were summed up in the Ruling by the Ombud; he said the following allegations were not true:

·                legal costs were demanded of him;

·                his lawyers asked two magistrates in his case to recuse themselves;

·                he had instructed his juniors to defend him on air;

·                he claimed qualifications he did not have.

He also complained that the respondent never contacted the municipal spokesperson for comment.

There was also an allegation that his appointment was done irregularly; he complained about this too.

[4]     In its response, respondent set out in detail its unsuccessful attempts in getting any response from the municipal spokesperson, a certain Mr Patrick Williams.  The radio talk was paid for, and, regarding other allegations, they had been published before by other local newspapers and by Afriforum. This is a summary of the defence.

[5]     For the applicant to be granted leave to appeal, he must show that he would have reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel.  I have read the Ombud’s Ruling, his analysis of the complaint and the response thereto.  I agree with the conclusion he came to.  Like he found, it is clear that the journalist went out of her way to secure some comment from Mr Williams. The radio interview also did take place and conveyed that applicant did have the qualifications as at the time of his appointment.  The letter of demand for legal costs was delivered by the journalist, although she did not find applicant personally.

[6]     In his application for leave to appeal, applicant raised other issues, such as the alleged appointment of a certain Mr Kanzi.  These were in fact not reported on in the article. The applicant also attaches affidavits from two people to bolster his case.  It is a pity that they were not submitted to the Ombud.  The position the applicant held was a very important public office which inevitably attracted attention.  There is still no adequate explanation by Mr Williams why he did not respond to the journalist.  This is just one of those unfortunate cases where one would have no basis to interfere with the Ombud’s ruling.

[7]     For the reasons given above, I rule that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success; the application therefore fails.

Dated this 19^th day of October 2016

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel