Nomkhitha Mona vs. City PressNom

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Were SAFCOL executives felled after tale of graft? (published on 27 December 2015).

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

 

The article said that former CEO of SA Forestry Company Limited (Safcol), Nomkhita Mona, had resigned from South African Forestry Company (Safcol) “with immediate effect after a tale of graft”.

Mona complained that the:

• story falsely reported that she:
  • had resigned with immediate effect after a tale of graft;
  • could not be reached for comment (after her resignation);
  • had suspended Safcol’s general manager, Goodman Gcaba; and
• headline was misleading and inaccurate.

Dismissing the complaint, Retief agreed with the editor inter alia because:

• the headline asked a question and did not state that Mona had been involved in any corruption;
• the Safcol board stated, “The board has been engaging management about the performance of the company. In this process, management has not been able to provide satisfactory answers and to that end, the Board has accepted the [resignation] of Chief Executive Officer, Ms Nomkhita Mona…”; and
• allegations of corruption had been raised under Mona’s helm, although the story did not directly implicate her – which was also why the complaint about her dignity and reputation having been tarnished should fail.

The Ombud concluded: “Safcol’s statement stands out and overrides all other considerations. It clearly linked the absence of satisfactory answers from management about the performance of the company to the board’s acceptance of Mona’s resignation.”

 

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of the former CEO of SA Forestry Company Limited (Safcol), Nomkhita Mona, and those of Dumisane Lubisi, editor of the City Press newspaper.

Complaint

Mona is complaining about a story in City Press of 27 December 2015, headlined Were SAFCOL executives felled after tale of graft?

She complains that the story falsely reported that she:

·         had resigned with immediate effect after a tale of graft;

·         could not be reached for comment (after her resignation); and

·         had suspended Safcol’s general manager, Goodman Gcaba.

Mona adds that the headline was misleading and inaccurate.

The text

The article, written by Sizwe Sama Yende, said that Mona had resigned from Safcol “with immediate effect after a tale of graft”.

The arguments

Mona says she resigned from her job, and denies that she was “felled”. She argues that no allegation of corruption has ever been made against her, and states that the reasons for her resignation had nothing to do with the information as reported in the story. She adds that the journalist did not report these reasons, even though he had copies of them.

(She outlines the reasons for her resignation, which are not relevant for the purposes of this finding.)

She also denies that her resignation was with immediate effect after a tale of graft. She says her contract of employment allowed for a notice period, which was incorporated in the document stating the reasons for her resignation, and adds that she has never been accused of and/or faced allegations of corruption or graft.

Mona explains that she kept the (company’s) phone until December 21, when she took it back to her employer. “At no stage did the reporter attempt to call me, or even send me an sms during the time the phone was in my possession.”

Furthermore, she says she recorded a voicemail message before handing back the phone, to the effect that people could contact her on her personal number, which she provided on the voicemail. “The statement is misleading as it also adds to the angle which [the reporter] uses in the article – giving the impression of what would have happened if I had been accused of graft/corruption.”

She says she has never seen such messages, and has since not been able to open her account. She also asks why the journalist did not contact any of her colleagues mentioned in the story.

Regarding a reported statement by Safcol spokesman Khaya Buthelezi that the board had been engaging management about the performance of the company, but that management had not been able to provide satisfactory answers (and that the board had therefore accepted her resignation), Mona denies that she had been “engaged” by the board – neither had she been informed about “unsatisfactory answers” given by management; instead, the feedback had been positive.

She explains that the allegations of corruption concerned events prior to her appointment to the post on 1 September 2012. The forensic report came about when she had been tipped off, after which she promptly alerted the Risk Department. “The investigation led to a forensic report which made certain allegations against some employees of the company. The general manager DID NOT uncover any massive corruption at SAFCOL.”

She adds that all forensic reports still had to be tested within a properly constituted disciplinary hearing.

Mona also denies that she had suspended Safcol general manager Goodman Gcaba – that would have been irregular, as he did not report to her.

She says the employees who were found guilty of contravening some of Safcol’s policies were either dismissed or resigned prior to the publication of the disputed newspaper report. “Their cases were concluded whilst I was still working for the company. This information could have been easily confirmed…”

She concludes that she:

·         was not implicated in any of the allegations of corruption;

·         was the highest-level official responsible for ensuring that Safcol was managed in a corruption-free manner;

·         instituted the original investigation against other employees; and

·         was promoting zero tolerance to corruption.

The reportage was damaging to her reputation, character and future career prospects, she adds.

Lubisi responds as follows: He says the headline asked a question and did not state that Mona had been involved in any corruption. He argues that “felled” was the right word (he says it means “knocked down”), because the board wanted answers from management, including Mona, and such answers were not provided – instead, she opted to resign. He cites the following statement by the Safcol board (issued on 18 December 2015) to justify the reportage: “The board has been engaging management about the performance of the company. In this process, management has not been able to provide satisfactory answers and to that end, the Board has accepted the [resignation] of Chief Executive Officer, Ms Nomkhita Mona…” He adds the newspaper would not ignore the fact that allegations of corruption had been raised under Mona’s helm, although she was not directly implicated (which the story did not state). Regarding the statement about Mona’s resignation “with immediate effect”, the editor says Buthelezi indicated this to the reporter, saying that she left immediately after tendering her resignation – following the board meeting where she had been called to account. He says Buthelezi (also) told the newspaper that Mona left within four days after her resignation. He denies that the story said she had been accused of corruption or graft – only that corrupt activities were investigated while she was CEO. Also, none of the findings listed in the article said that Mona had been guilty. Lubisi says Buthelezi gave the newspaper Mona’s e-mail address as the only contact details he had of her. He admits that the reporter did not phone her or send her an SMS on Safcol’s telephone. He insists that the reporter did send an e-mail to Mona’s private account, and that the newspaper received no notification that the message failed to go through. “All of these attempts to seek [her cell phone number]…indicate that reasonable steps were taken to get comments from [her]…” He adds that the statement by Safcol’s board on December 18 indicated that there were issues with management which resulted in some resignations. He says he cannot speculate on why Buthelezi did not furnish City Press with the reasons for Mona’s resignation. With regard to Mona’s complaint that the story tarnished her integrity and reputation, Lubisi reiterates that the article did not say that she was guilty of anything – it merely recorded what had happened while she was CEO. He says Safcol officials told the newspaper that Mona’s resignation probably had to do with Gcaba’s treatment – so, there was a link between those two matters. Gcaba also said there was no way that he, as a senior manager, could be suspended without the knowledge and involvement of the CEO. In conclusion, Lubisi says that, if Mona disputes Safcol’s statement, she should take it up with her previous employer – “City Press only conveyed the message to the public”.

Analysis

Safcol’s statement stands out and overrides all other considerations. It clearly linked the absence of satisfactory answers from management about the performance of the company to the board’s acceptance of Mona’s resignation.

In this section, I normally elaborate on the reasons for my finding. In this instance, though, that would not be necessary, as I heartily agree with Lubisi’s arguments and would merely repeat what he said.

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