Appeal Hearing Decision: Maharaj Parbathie vs Weekend Witness

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, No love lost between Bantam and Maharaj – Stir over tea club money; PMB cluster commander and Ipid KZN boss blame each other for missing money (published on 13 February 2016).

This ruling by the Appeals Panel was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

 

The story said that Parbatie Maharaj, a former Pietermaritzburg cluster commander and currently the head of the KZN Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid), had been accused of using public funds to throw an elaborate farewell party when she had moved to Ipid in 2014. However, Maharaj reportedly pointed a finger at Brigadier Francis Bantham (who was the acting cluster commander), who allegedly intended to use R10 000 for a “grand function to market herself” as Maharaj’s replacement. The journalist called this “clash” a “cat fight”.

Maharaj complained the story had unnecessarily tarnished her reputation by falsely stating that she had had a farewell party; that some missing money had allegedly been used to pay for this “party”; and that the journalist had failed to ask her about the “fight” between herself and to verify the information that she had supplied the reporter with.

The Ombud dismissed the complaint, mainly because the allegations made against Maharaj had been balanced out by various references to what she herself had to say. He also considered that the newspaper had on-the-record evidence that a case had indeed been opened against Maharaj.

Maharaj then successfully applied for leave to appeal.

The Appeals Panel found for Maharaj, mainly because:

• the reportage was not fair and balanced as the publication omitted to mention that Maharaj had submitted some documents in her defence regarding the alleged misappropriation of funds;
• the publication failed to verify the accuracy of a report or source, despite an invitation by Maharaj to do so;
• Maharaj’s reputation had been tarnished; and
• the sub-headline was misleading.

Weekend Witness was directed to apologise for these breaches of the Press Code.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

MAHARAJ PARBATHIE                                                                            APPELLANT

AND

[1]     General Parbathie Maharaj (“appellant”) was granted leave to appeal the Ombud’s Ruling of 22 April 2016.  The Ruling dismissed her complaint against Weekend Witness (“respondent”), which had been lodged against respondent in connection with a story published by respondent on 13 February 2016.  The headline in capital letters “NO LOVE LOST BETWEEN BANTHAM AND MAHARAJ”.

[2]     While the appellant was still the police cluster commander in Pietermaritzburg, she was in charge of certain projects, one of which was known as the Project STEP; she was also in charge of the monies of the police tea club; a role later taken over by one police officer Bantham.  The story reported that there were allegations, some by Bantham, against the appellant that some monies of the tea club and of Project STEP were missing or could not be accounted for.  The appellant was being implicated, and some investigations were reported as being pending against her.  It was also alleged that she used the club’s funds to finance her own farewell party when she left for the Independent Police Investigations Directorate (IPID).

[3]     The appellant’s complaints were summed up by the Press Ombud in his Ruling, namely, that the story falsely stated that:

“?       she had received a farewell party; and

?    Missing money had allegedly been used for this ‘party’.”

Furthermore, that the journalist failed to

“?       ask her about the ‘fight’ between herself and cluster commander Brigadier Francis Bantham … and

?    verify the information she had supplied to the report ….” In this respect, the appellant says she submitted several documents, which were ignored, to substantiate her response.

In conclusion she says that “the reportage has unnecessarily tarnished her reputation”.

[4]     The appellant had been given six hours by the journalist within which to respond to the allegations.  She did so.  She denied that a farewell party was ever held for her,or that money was missing. She went further to attach some documents which she said would refute the allegations of misappropriation of funds levelled against her.

[5]     After leave to appeal was granted, and by the time the appeal came to be heard, the crux of the matter was whether or not the reportage was fair and balanced as the respondent had omitted to mention that, in her defence, the appellant had submitted some documents, and whether adequate attention and consideration was given thereto.

5.1    The appellant argued that the report was neither fair nor balanced.  While the article carried her denial that farewell party was held for her, no mention was made of the fact that she had submitted some documents in her defence regarding the alleged misappropriation of funds. Secondly she argued that the documents were not adequately looked at or considered; had that been done, respondent would have realized that the allegations had no merit.  In this respect, the appellant suggested ulterior motive on the part of the people making allegations against her; to which the newspaper was unwittingly an ally. She says they were prompted by the investigations she had initiated against them.

5.2    For its part, the respondent contended that the report was fair and balanced.  It pointed out that the story did state that the applicant denied the allegations.  The respondent argued that there were indeed criminal investigations instituted against the applicant; it was not its duty to make a finding of not guilty or otherwise.

[6]     Allegations of misappropriations of funds are a serious matter as they imply dishonesty; both parties must have appreciated this.  Within the 6 hours given to respond and clearly under pressure, the appellant collected a number of documents, some more relevant than others, which she sent to the journalist. In her e-mail, she says the following:

“Project STEP was approved by the then Deputy Area Commissioner.  The books of the both Project STEP and the Tea Club were audited on a regular basis.  I attach copies of documents certifying that all was in order.  It is important to note that at all times there was Treasurer and a Secretary who co-signed for all expenses and that decisions were taken by a committee who signed all the minutes.  I have a pile of documents and media articles to substantiate the work done by Project STEP and the Tea Club.  I have attached documentation which includes a Certificate of Appreciation from General Ngobeni, records of donations to various causes and newspaper articles relating to the aforesaid.  This documentation is available for inspection by anyone interested in determining the truth and I intend to use it to defend myself.”  (Own emphasis).

The respondent did not take up the offer to come and inspect these documents; this despite the fact that the appellant, in her above e-mail, specifically states that the “books of … both Project STEP and the Tea Club were audited on a regular basis”, and that she was attaching “copies of documents certifying that all was in order”.  One of the documents attached was an e-mail of 3 December 2014 (three months after the appellant had left) from one Capt van Jaarsveld, directed to the appellant: “General the committee decided to close the tea club, however, we need the Mandate or Constitution or some directive as to how the R40,000 must be dealt with”. For one thing, this message does not rhyme with the notion that the club’s money was missing in that it does not raise any query.  Copies of checklists of Monthly Statements for Semi-Official Institutions were submitted to the respondent.    These were documents which, prima facie, showed the financial affairs of the club to be in good order. In light of the fact that the appellant specifically said that they were being submitted to refute allegations of misappropriation of funds, this was important.

[7]     The respondent acknowledged receipt of a number of documents.  It does not deny the relevance of some of them; but constantly argues that they did not prove appellant’s innocence and further that it was not for the respondent o pronounce on her innocence.  The argument misses the point, which is that respondent should have been prompted into being more careful, particularly in light of appellant’s allegations of ulterior motive on the part of her accusers.  The respondent was not expected to determine innocence.

[8]     There is another problem with respondent’s argument.  The story did not at all mention that, in refuting the allegations of “missing” monies, the appellant had submitted some documents to it purporting to support her case. In this respect, the respondent said the following in its heads of argument submitted at the hearing of the appeal on 2 August 2016: “…. the respondent concedes that mention could have been made in the story that untested documents had been submitted which the appellant contended supported her version.”  This was a very material omission, for which no adequate explanation was given. Appellant’s effort to promptly get and submit these documents was nullified. The result was an unbalanced reporting. In our view, respondent should at the very least also have mentioned that the appellant had submitted some documents in her defence for the readers to make their own judgment.

[9]     As said earlier, the subheading spoke of “missing” money; i.e. it stated as a fact that there was some money missing. In its head or argument, the respondent conceded that “the subheading should have contained the word ‘alleged’, or that the word ‘missing’ should have been in quotes”, but contends that the “fact that this is an unproven allegation is … clear from reading the story”. At the hearing respondent provided no source or document in support of the claim that money was in fact missing, or even alleged missing. The police investigation is into missing books of account, not missing money. The reported link between the alleged farewell party and “missing funds” was tenuous at best. Nothing justified such a statement of fact in the article.

[10]   For the reasons given above, we are of the view that the respondent violated:

10.1       article 1.1 and 1.2 of the Code in that the reporting was unfair and unbalanced in that it failed to mention that appellant had submitted to it documents to refute allegations of misappropriation of funds levelled against her;

10.2       article 1.7 in that it failed to verify the accuracy of a report or source, in light of documentation submitted to it, despite an invitation by the accused person to do so;

10.3       article 3.3 (harm to appellant’s reputation);

10.4       article 10.1 (misleading sub-headline).

[11]   The following orders are therefore made:

11.1       The appeal is upheld.

11.2       The Ombud’s Ruling of 22 April 2016 is hereby set aside.

11.3       The Weekend Witness must publish, as prominently as the article complained of, an apology to Lt- Gen P Maharaj for the harm done to her reputation. A draft of the statement of apology for publication must be submitted to the Director of the Press Council for approval within 7 days of the receipt of this Decision by the Weekend Witness.

11.4       The statement of apology must also state that in refuting the allegations of misappropriation of funds of the Step PROJECT and the Pietermaritzburg Cluster Tea Club, Lt-Gen Maharaj submitted some documentation. [It is specifically directed that the Weekend Witness is not to use the word “untested” documents, as it did in its heads of argument; everything said in the story was after all “untested” and there is therefore no need to use that word as this would add a new dimension to the matter].

11.5 The statement of apology must be published by the Weekend Witness within 7 days of its approval by the Director of the Press Council.

Dated this 19^th day of August 2016

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel

Mr B Gibson, Member, Public Representative

Ms J Sandison, Member, Media Representative