Appeal Decision: Deshi Ngxanga vs. Volksblad

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