Celia Owen et al vs.Die Burger, Netwerk24

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Nkandla: ‘Sluit Zuma en Oscar saam op’ (Nkandla: ‘Lock up Zuma with Oscar’), as well as a poster on the same date with the wording, Nkandla: ‘Sluit JZ toe met Oscar’ (Nkandla: ‘Lock up JZ with Oscar’). The texts were published on 26 July 2016.

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

The story quoted an EFF spokesman as saying that Pres Jacob Zuma should go to prison for Nkandla – not to Robben Island, but to the Kgosi Mampuru jail in Pretoria where he could share a cell with Oscar Pistorius. The story was accompanied by a picture of Pistorius; the caption read, “He (Pistorius) won’t get away without paying …”

Celia Owen and 24 others complained that the headline, a poster, a picture of Pistorius as well as a caption to the picture:

• falsely, misleadingly and manipulatively linked the latter to Zuma (regarding a “case of fraud” and debt pertaining to Nkandla); and
• allowed commercial, political, personal or other non-professional considerations to influence or slant reporting (as this was “politically motivated in view of the then upcoming municipal elections”).

Retief dismissed the complaint, inter alia saying that:

• the headline, posters and picture were true reflections of the story and the statements came from an official EFF spokesman – the spokesman was quoted verbatim and that the reportage merely reflected that fact; and
• Die Burger and Netwerk24 were merely the messengers.

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Celia Owen and those of Marga Ley, on behalf of Die Burger and Netwerk 24.

Owen and 24 others are complaining about a headline in Die Burger of 26 July 2016 which read, Nkandla: ‘Sluit Zuma en Oscar saam op’ (Nkandla: ‘Lock up Zuma with Oscar’), as well as a poster on the same date with the wording, Nkandla: ‘Sluit JZ toe met Oscar’ (Nkandla: ‘Lock up JZ with Oscar’). They also complain about a picture and its caption.

Complaint

The group complains that the headline of a story, a poster, a picture of Oscar Pistorius as well as a caption to the picture:

·         falsely, misleadingly and manipulatively linked the latter to Pres Jacob Zuma (regarding a “case of fraud” and debt pertaining to Nkandla); and

·         allowed commercial, political, personal or other non-professional considerations to influence or slant reporting (as this was “politically motivated in view of the then upcoming municipal elections”).

The text

The story, written by Llewellyn Prince, quoted an EFF spokesman as saying that Pres Jacob Zuma should go to prison for Nkandla – not to Robben Island, but to the Kgosi Mampuru jail in Pretoria where he can share a cell with Oscar Pistorius.

The story was accompanied by a picture of Pistorius; the caption read, “He (Pistorius) won’t get away without paying…”

The arguments

The complainants say the article was about Zuma and court findings about Nkandla, “which in fact has nothing to do with Oscar Pistorius”.

They add:

“The fact that the EFF happens to mention that Zuma should be locked up with Pistorius, does not deviate from the fact that the headlines, accompanying picture as well as the poster, was misleading, did not give a true reflection of the report in question, and in fact, has nothing to do with Oscar Pistorius at all. However, through misleading headlines and posters, Pistorius get linked to Zuma and his case of fraud pertaining [to] Nkandla. This is totally misleading, and [is] not a reasonable reflection of the true facts as Pistorius has nothing to do with Zuma nor Nkandla.”

Ley replies that the headline, posters and picture were true reflections of the story and the statement of the official EFF spokesman – which means that the publication has complied with the Code.

She adds that the EFF is well-known for its provocative statements, and argues that there is no burden on the press to “censor” such statements. She says the material in dispute was not misleading as it made the point that the spokesman wanted to make – even if Zuma was a well-known person, just like Pistorius, he also had to go to jail.

Regarding the alleged commercial, political etc. considerations, Ley says that the spokesman was quoted verbatim and that the material merely reflected that fact.

She concludes, “The courts have recognized that political debate in South Africa is often in robust and forthright terms. The press is obliged to report fairly and accurately on public statements made by politicians, however, unreasonable or objectionable they may be. The press cannot be held accountable for the content of such public statements because this is not the repetition of source-based allegations; this is reportage on public events.”

In its reply to Ley’s response, the complainants say the point is that Pistorius was in no way connected to Nkandla or Zuma. “Therefore to link his photograph with the story is not relevant…and neither is it ethical. We see it as a ploy to get the voyeuristic public mob to spend money on or read the story.”

Analysis

The link created between Pistorius and Zuma, even if such a link was forged, was not of the newspaper’s making – Die Burger was merely the messenger, and it was doing its job in the way it should have done.

I do not believe that this needs any further argument. Suffice it to say that Ley is correct in every aspect of her argument.

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