Abe Seakamela vs. Sowetan

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Education dept hides from Public Protector – Ghost camps used in scam (published on 22 September 2016).

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

The article said the Department of Education was frustrating the Public Protector’s investigation by avoiding to respond to a 2012 report into the R674 000 it had paid to three schools that had hosted ghost matric camps. Dr Abe Seakamela, the former acting superintendent-general of the North West Education Department, reportedly “sat on” the report until the unions protested in 2013, adding that the report was only handed over in 2014.

Seakamela complained that the newspaper did not afford him an opportunity to comment on the statement that he had “sat on” a report – falsely implying or suggesting that he had:

• deliberately withheld that document until he was forced to release it; and
• condoned corruption, or even that he had benefitted from it.

Retief opined that the reporter had used the proper channels to try and elicit comment on this issue. The story also reflected that the spokesperson was not able to respond in time – adhering to Section 1.8 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct in this regard.

Dismissing the complaint, the Ombud said Seakamela should not blame the newspaper for the Department’s failure to respond.

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Dr Abe Seakamela, the former acting superintendent-general of the North West Education Department, and those of Wendy Pretorius, on behalf of the Sowetan newspaper.

Seakamela is complaining about a story in Sowetan of 22 September 2016, headlined Education dept hides from Public Protector – Ghost camps used in scam.

Complaint                                            

Seakamela complains that the newspaper did not afford him an opportunity to comment on the statement that he “sat on” a report – falsely implying or suggesting that he had:

·         deliberately withheld that document until he was forced to release it; and

·         condoned corruption, or even that he benefitted from it.

The text

The introductory sentence of the article, written by Lindile Sifile, adequately summarized the gist of the story. It read, “The education department is frustrating the public protector’s investigation by avoiding to respond to a 2012 report into the R674 000 it paid to three schools that host ghost matric camps.”

Sifile also stated that Seakamela “sat on” the report until the unions protested in 2013, adding that the report was only handed over in 2014.

Sowetan responds

Pretorius says that Sifile contacted departmental spokesman Elias Malindi on his cellphone, who told the reporter that certain officials were in a workshop and that he would not be able to respond immediately. She then sent him an e-mail, which asked “about Seakamela and the report he is accused of ‘sitting on’.”

However, even by October 5 Sowetan had not received any response from the spokesman.

Pretorius also says the reporter could not trace Seakamela as he did not work at the Department at that time, and the internet was also not of any help.

Analysis

Although only one sentence mentioned Seakamela by name, the newspaper was still obliged to ask for comment as the reportage on him was of a critical nature (as he allegedly deliberately withheld the report, until he was forced to release it). Besides, the next few sentences in the story elaborated on this issue, implicating him in the withholding of the report – which means that, in fact, not only one sentence referred to him.

However, the newspaper did mention the statement in dispute in its enquiry to the Department. Sifile wrote (to Malindi): “The report was given to … Seakamela in 2012 but for some reason he sat on it until Sadtu and Neptosa protested. They only got it in 2014…”

Although this sentence was not phrased as a question, the spokesman still had an opportunity to respond to it.

I do not expect Sifile to have asked Seakamela for his comment as well, given the fact that she did use the proper channels to try and elicit comment. It is therefore not relevant whether or not it was difficult of impossible to get hold of him for comment.

Also, the story reflected that Malindi was not able to respond in time – adhering to Section 1.8 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct in this regard.

However, that is not the end of the matter. Section 1.9 states: “Where a news item is published on the basis of limited information … the reports should be supplemented once new information becomes available.” Therefore, the only remaining question is whether the newspaper did report the Department’s response in a follow-up article.

I note Sowetan says that the Department still had not responded by October 5. I have no reason to doubt this. The onus was on the Department to respond, and the newspaper cannot publish a non-existent response.

On the same grounds, I also accept that Seakamela received the report in 2012, and by 2013 (or maybe even 2014) still had not released it – giving credence to the statement that he “sat on” the report.

It was up to the Department to refute that statement, but it never did so. Seakamela should not blame the newspaper for the Department’s failure to respond.

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

Appeal

Our 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