Jabulani Ngcobo vs. Sunday World
SUMMARY
The headline to the story in dispute read, Wanted for stealing ‘Cashflow’ (published on 20 March 2016).
This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.
The story said that Jabulani “Cashflow” Ngcobo, an alleged bogus businessman from Durban who was popular for throwing lavish parties and displaying his bling lifestyle on social media, had become a wanted man. Several “victims” reportedly said that they had been persuaded to invest large amounts of money in his business – but who had been conned out of their money.
Ngcobo complained that the newspaper had published those damaging allegations against him, even though its sources had timeously and unequivocally withdrawn their statements, had confirmed that their allegations were erroneous, and had apologised for any inconvenience caused. He added that his dignity and reputation had been tarnished by the reportage.
Retief upheld the complaint – once the journalist decided to report the allegations against Ngcobo, he was obliged to do the same with the withdrawals and apologies of those statements. He said the neglect to do so was unfair, and that it probably resulted in doing unnecessary harm to Ngcobo’s reputation.
Sunday World was directed to apologise to Ngcobo for reporting the allegations against him, while omitting that its sources had withdrawn those statements and apologised for them – probably causing some unnecessary harm to his reputation.
THE RULING ITSELF
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Buhle Duma of Fluxman Attorneys, on behalf of Mr Jabulani Ngcobo, and those of Abdul Milazi, editor of the Sunday World newspaper.
Complaint
Ngcobo is complaining about a story on page 7 in Sunday World of 20 March 2016, headlined Wanted for stealing ‘Cashflow’.
He complains that the newspaper published damaging allegations (details below) made against him by Mr Tom Ledwaba and Mr Ntutuzelo Maposela, despite the fact that both of them have timeously and unequivocally withdrawn their statements, confirmed that their allegations were erroneous, and apologised for any inconvenience caused (more details below).
Ngcobo adds that his complaint is about the unprofessional, unethical and biased conduct of the journalist, and that this appeared to be orchestrated in an attempt to damage his reputation and integrity.
The text
The first few sentence of the story, written by Buchule Raba, adequately summarised the content of the article.
It read, “Jabulani ‘Cashflow’ Ngcobo, an alleged bogus businessman from Durban, who is popular for throwing lavish parties and displaying his bling lifestyle on social media is now a wanted man. According to his victims, Cashflow allegedly wooed them to his investment scheme by promising them mountains of returns if they invested their money with his companies Cashflow Project and Cashflow Equities. Pretoria North police spokeswoman Riana van Aarde confirmed that they were in hot pursuit of the alleged conman and pleaded with the public to help.”
The article cited several “victims” who attested that they have been persuaded to invest large amounts of money in the business – but who were conned and lost those sums of money.
Analysis
The story quoted Ledwaba as saying that he invested R120 000 in Cashflow Projects based on Jabulani “Cashflow” Ngcobo’s advice – who has then “run away” with his money. Ledwaba reportedly sent messages to Ngcobo to get his money back, to no avail. “The way he made my life a living hell, sometimes I drive through red robots.” The story added that he decided to open a case of fraud in October last year, but his attorneys told him it would be difficult to serve Cashflow Projects with court papers because they did not have its address and Ngcobo had since moved out of his offices in Randburg.
Maposela related that he had contacted Ngcobo for more information, who informed him that he needed to come to Johannesburg for training that would cost him R12 000 – which he did. He was then told of an investment opportunity that grew up to 70% in six months. He reportedly invested R200 000 in Cashflow.
He was quoted as saying that he had unsuccessfully tried to call Ngcobo after six months to get access to his money – however, Ngcobo made empty promises. “I haven’t got the money. I want that money including the interest he promised me. I have now opened a file with my lawyers to discuss a plan of action,” Maposela reportedly said.
Ngcobo complains that the journalist reported the above-mentioned statements despite the fact that both Maposela and Ledwaba wrote the following e-mail messages to him (dated March 17, and both unedited):
Maposela: “The report I gave Raba B. that Cashflow project is owned by Jabulani Ngcobo was not correct as I thought. Thereafter after consultation with my lawyers I was advised to withdraw publication of the story in your newspaper pending further legal advice. I therefore sincerely apologise for any inconvenience that this might cause.”
Ledwaba:
“I, Thomas Ledwaba reported a matter to your journalist with regard to my investment with the above mentioned company which I alleged to have belonged to Mr Jabulani Ngcobo. Upon further investigation, I found that Mr Ngcobo does not own that company. I went further and consulted with my lawyers for legal advise and their response was that it the story is published it might have legal consequences and litigation might be the recourse for Mr Ngcobo as he’s not in any way involved in this matter. Taking into account in all these developments and the ramifications thereof I decided to withdraw my story pending further investigation. I sincerely apologise to your journalist and Sunday world for any inconvenience this might have caused.”
Milazi says Ledwaba and Maposela were not the main sources for the article. “The journalist found the story independently and tracked down the people involved. [He] also independently verified through the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) that the company called Cashflow Projects was indeed registered in Mr Ngcobo’s name and one other individual. [He] also checked with the Financial Services Board to verify if Cashflow Projects was registered as a financial service provider, and found that it was not.”
The editor adds that Raba also contacted Ngcobo for comment, who confirmed that he was aware of the fraud charge against him (but would not comment as he said the matter was sub judice); the reporter also verified the case of fraud with the Police.
Milazi says the newspaper received Maposela’s and Ledwaba’s e-mail messages, but states that it had already independently verified the information “and therefore did not need [them] for that purpose”. In the meantime, their comments on how they got to know about and invest in Cashflow Projects remained relevant to the story “and those were not categorically withdrawn”. He argues the emphasis of their messages was on withdrawing statements claiming that Ngcobo owned or was associated with Cashflow Projects.
In conclusion he rejects any suggestion of unethical conduct on the newspaper’s part.
Ngcobo replies that he is not and never was the owner of Cashflow Projects. He says he made a statement under oath to this effect to the Police, prior to the publication of the article – which happened in the owner’s presence (he says the latter made a statement to the same effect).
He asks that, if it is true that Ledwaba and Maposela had not been the newspaper’s main sources (as stated by Milazi), why then would the story mention them and rely on their allegations? He adds that the editor has not explained the reason for the inclusion of those allegations in the story – and argues this is because the publication did rely on them.
Duma argues that, if the story stated that Ledwaba had laid a charge of fraud against Ngcobo, then the journalist had to include his (and Maposela’s) retractions of their allegations as well – the failure of which, he says, amounted to biased and unfair reporting. “Additionally, if Raba’s intention was to report impartially, he would have also established that…both [Ngcobo] and the owner of Cashflow Projects deposed to statements under oath confirming that [the former] is not the owner of Cashflow Projects.”
The attorney also wants to know why the journalist did not disclose the other sources with whom the newspaper had already independently verified its information (that is, if Milazi’s version is true).
Duma concludes, “In the circumstances, we respectfully submit that Milazi’s reply is inadequate in that inter alia it does not remedy the causes of complaint contained in our [complaint with the Press Ombudsman].”
Analysis
The story covered both Ledwaba’s and Maposela’s allegations quite extensively – while knowing, ahead of publication, that they had withdrawn their statements.
The reasons for the withdrawals are irrelevant, as are the newspaper’s reasons for including the original allegations in the story. What is important, is that once the journalist decided to report the allegations against Ngcobo, he was obliged to do the same with the withdrawals of those statements.
Telling only half the truth usually distorts the truth.
It presents the information out of context and is therefore unfair; in this case it probably also resulted in unnecessary harm to Ngcobo’s reputation.
Secondly, the editor provided me with a copy of a document derived from the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission on which the journalist based his belief that Ngcobo was the owner of Cashflow Projects. This document refers to “Jabulani Magnificent Ngcobo” as the registered owner of “Cash Flow Equities CC” and of “Cash Flow Properties CC”.
I note that not one of the CCs referred to in this document is named “Cashflow Projects”, while both do contain the name “Cash Flow”.
Based on this information, I have no ground to find either for or against the complainant regarding this matter.
Finding
The complaint is upheld with regards to the reporting of Ledwaba’s and Maposela’s allegations against Ngcobo. Those references, while omitting that they withdrew those statements, were in breach of the following sections of the Code of Ethics and Conduct:
· 1.1: “The media shall take care to report news … fairly”;
· 1.2: “News shall 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 summarization”; and
· 3.3: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving … reputation…”
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of our Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The breach of the Code of Ethics and Conduct as indicated above is a Tier 2 offence.
Sanction
Sunday World is directed to apologise to Ngcobo on page 7 for reporting Ledwaba’s and Maposela’s allegations against him, while omitting that they withdrew those statements, and for causing some unnecessary harm to his reputation.
The text, which should be approved by me, should:
- start with the sanction; and
- end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”.
The headline should reflect the content of the text. A heading such as Matter of Fact, or something similar, is not acceptable.
If the offending article appeared on the newspaper’s website, the correction should appear there as well.
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