Seswantsho Godfrey Lebeya vs. Media24
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Seswantsho Godfrey Lebeya, a candidate for the Public Protector position, and those of Dumisane Lubisi, Executive Editor of the City Press.
Lebeya is complaining about a story by Alicestine October published on the news24 website on July 11, 2016, entitled “Public Protector Candidate Allegedly has ties with Guptas” [http://city-press.news24.com/News/public-protector-candidate-allegedly-has-ties-with-guptas-20160711].
Complaint
Lebeya complains that the article, which was accompanied by the photograph of the Guptas and published ahead of the shortlisting of candidates, was designed to “raise their eyebrows” as it links him to controversial figures. Specifically he notes that the article stated:
• as fact that he was linked to prominent controversial figures. These controversial figures are then not disclosed; and
• that he was a witness in the case against suspended crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli who was accused of murder.
The text
The section on Lebeya is published as a separate box at the end of the story under the headline “Controversial ties that may raise eyebrows” . It reads:
Advocate Godfrey Lebeya, former deputy national commissioner of the SAPS’ crime detection unit, has been linked to prominent controversial figures.
He was a witness in the case against suspended crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli who was accused of the murder of Oupa Ramogibe, in what was described as a love triangle at the time.
According to Corruption Watch Lebeya asked after the trial that statements allegedly wrongly attributed to him be corrected as it suggested that he was part of a movement to get rid of Mdluli.
The arguments
In subsequent discussions with the newspaper, Lebeya says he was told the source of the information was a Corruption Watch report. (The newspaper says the controversial figure in the story was General Mdluli.)
He notes that Corruption Watch did not link him to a controversial figure and, that if a court case was the criteria, then all jurists would be linked to controversial figures.
Lebeya says the Ministerial Task Team dismissed a conspiracy theory that there were efforts to “get rid of Mdluli”.
He notes that he was not given an opportunity to respond before publication. He adds that he asked for the court to correct statements at the inquest and these were deleted by the High Court.
Lebeya asks for a correction that outlines that he has no ties with the Guptas, clarifies that he was a witness at the inquest of Oupa Ramogibe and not in a case against Mdluli and had requested the High Court to delete the statements that were incorrectly made by the magistrate in the reasons for the judgement. The High Court ordered the deletion as requested.
Furthermore, Lebeya requests that it be noted that with regard to the “movement to remove Mdluli”, the correction should note that MTT dismissed the allegations as unfounded and confirmed that officers had performed their work professionally, in good faith and with due care and regard for the sensitivity of the matter. He requests an apology for the incorrect publication and inconvenience this caused.
City Press replied that it published the article on its online platform on July 11 within a bigger article which was titled “Public Protector candidate allegedly has ties with Guptas”. The story focusing on Lebeya and one other candidate had a headline “Controversial ties that may raise eyebrows”.
The newspaper says the headline relating to the Guptas had nothing to do with Lebeya and therefore a correction is not needed.
City Press also notes that its story was published three days after the Corruption Watch report had been released to Parliamentarians who would be doing the selection of the short list.
Lubisi notes that the Corruption Watch report, under the heading pertinent professional conduct says: “Lebeya was also a witness at the inquest into whether former police intelligence head Lieutenant-General Richard Mdluli was responsible for the death of a love rival, Oupa Ramogibe. After the judgment, which cleared Mdluli, Lebeya asked that the record of the inquest be corrected, because he believed certain statements had erroneously been attributed to him and had given the impression that he was part of a supposed movement to remove Mdluli.
Mdluli had mentioned him in a letter to President Jacob Zuma in November 2011, that there was a group of people trying to get rid of him. They included former national police commissioner Bheki Cele, former Gauteng provincial police commissioner Mzwandile Petros and Hawks commander Anwa Dramat.”
City Press disputes that the article could have influenced the Ad Hoc Committee on the short listing as they already had the full Corruption Watch report which was sent to them, as noted earlier, prior to the publication of the story.
Lubisi says that City Press was justified in the headlines because Advocate Lebeya had been linked to a case which has received a lot of media coverage and it was reasonable to publish the contents of the Corruption Watch report at the time that it did. City Press says that Advocate Lebeya was not contacted for comment since the information in the Corruption Watch report, a public submission, was not new information.
Finally, Lubisi says that the report was therefore fair, balanced and truthfully captured the report from Corruption Watch, which was used a base.
Analysis
1. Link to Guptas
Lebeya’s story is placed in a box within a larger story that about other candidate’s links to the Guptas. The placement of the story on Lebeya with a separate headline in a box separates this article from the overarching article that is headlined “Public Protector Candidate Allegedly has ties with Guptas”. Neither Lebeya;s name or photograph are used and the reader would need to read the smaller article to read his name.
2. Witness against Mdluli
The extract of the Corruption Watch report supplied by City Press makes it clear that Lebeya was a witness at the inquest into the death of Oupa Ramogibe and not during a trial. The story in fact refers to a case and a trial. The City Press story is therefore not an accurate reflection of the content of the report.
3. Correction of facts
The Corruption Watch report notes that Lebeya asked that the record of the inquest be corrected as he believed certain statements had erroneously been attributed to him and had given the impression that he was part of a supposed movement to remove Mdluli. By saying “allegedly attributed” to him, the City Press story implies that this was disputed. The fact that the High Court allowed the deletion of statements wrongly attributed to him were in the public domain but was also not reflected in the story.
1. 4. Mdluli
Once again, City Press is quoting the Corruption Watch report. This statement omits to give a broader context to the issues being discussed but simply leaves the reader with the suggestion that “he was part of a movement to get rid of Mdluli”.
The sidebar does not reflect that Corruption Watch is the only source of the information and no additional steps appear to have been taken to verify the information or to provide context.
While the information was in the public domain, Section 1.2 of the code mades it care that news must be presented in context and in balanced manner. The question to be asked is whether the story had material omissions.
Findings
1. Guptas link
This complaint is dismissed as the story stands separate to the one headlined by the Guptas. If a reader did access the smaller sidebar, it would be clear that Lebeya was not linked to the Guptas.
2. Witness against Mdluli
The report clearly states the circumstances of the testimony which is incorrectly reported in the story. This complaint is upheld.
3. Request for correction of testimony.
His complaint that the story does not correctly reflect the facts of his request for a correction of the record is upheld.
4. Movement to get rid of Mdluli
The complaint is upheld as the story fails to give material context which was already in the public domain.
City Press is in breach of Section 1.1 which calls on the media “to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly” as well as section 1.2 that calls for “news to be presented in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions or summarisation”.
City Press relied solely on a report for this story and not give a full picture of the other facts in the public domain.
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of the Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3). The breaches of the Code of Ethics and Conduct as indicated above are a Tier 2 offences.
Sanction
City Press is directed correct its story with an apology on the site. The final text needs to be approved by the Deputy Ombud prior to publication.
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].
Paula Fray
Deputy Press Ombud
