Don MacRobert vs. City Press

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Don MacRobert, acting CEO and a spokesman of the Desmond and Leah Legacy Foundation, and those of Dumisane Lubisi, executive editor of the City Press newspaper.

Complaint

MacRobert is complaining about a story on page 2 in City Press of 14 February 2016, headlined Tutu gets the boot – Board suspends executive director in drama over conflict of interest since her marriage to a professor.

He complains that the following statements are false:

·         The board had threatened to resign en masse if action was not taken “to ameliorate the implications of Tutu’s marriage to a professor with links to her parents’ foundation”;

·         The board cited finance and governance concerns arising from “a possible conflict of interest with her partner, Professor Marceline van Furth”;

·         A number of board members “have resigned from the foundation following clashes with her”;

·         Two insiders told the newspaper that board members “had been up in arms in December”; they said their unhappiness stemmed from the implications of the marriage between the reverend and Van Furth in that month; insiders confirmed that “the board was concerned about possible conflicts of interest arising from the women’s union”; and

·         The foundation “did not respond to specific questions from City Press on what exactly had led to Tutu’s suspension” – as such questions were not put to it.

The text

The story, written by Andisiwe Makinana, was about the suspension of Rev Canon Mpho Tutu (“Tutu”) as executive director of the Desmond & Leah Tutu Foundation.

The first few sentences summarise the article:

[Tutu] has been suspended as the executive director of her parents’ legacy foundation, only weeks after tying the knot. The board of the Desmond & Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation met last week and unanimously, and quietly, decided to suspend Mpho Tutu.

It had threatened to resign en masse if action was not taken to ameliorate the implications of Tutu’s marriage to a professor with links to her parents’ foundation.

The board cited finance and governance concerns arising from a possible conflict of interest with her partner, Professor Marceline van Furth, insiders say.

Van Furth is the Desmond Tutu Chair of Medicine at Vrije Universiteit in Netherlands. It has been working with the Desmond & Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation on special projects.

The story explained the concerns about a possible conflict as follows:

Van Furth is believed to have played a key role in securing a €2 million (R35.8 million at the current exchange rate) donation to the foundation from a Dutch lottery three years ago.

City Press has seen a picture of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, his daughter and Van Furth taken in February 2013 when the Dutch Postcode Lottery donated the €2 million to the foundation. €1.5 million of that money was for a special project jointly designed by the Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre and the Desmond & Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation. The foundation was the lead partner.

Insiders confirmed the board was concerned about possible conflicts of interest arising from the women’s union, but offered no examples of what form these might take.

‘The board would have resigned en bloc had this [suspension] not happened,’ said a source.

The journalist reported that the foundation did not respond to specific questions from City Press on exactly what had led to Tutu’s suspension.

Analysis

MacRobert complains about several false statements, but he does not argue how they are wrong.

Threatening to resign

The story said that the board had threatened to resign en masse if action was not taken “to ameliorate the implications of Tutu’s marriage to a professor with links to her parents’ foundation”.

Lubisi says two sources who were close to the foundation informed the newspaper that Tutu had been suspended from her position. They told the reporter of unhappiness about the way Tutu had treated them, mentioned clashes involving board and staff members, and added that the alleged behaviour and clashes were “historical”, as the media had reported widely on the matter.

He adds, “The sources told us that … both board members and staff were confiding in each other about their unhappiness but none wanted to ‘rock the boat’ due to the respect [for] the founders.” The editor also says that board members voted en masse for the suspension, as they felt that if nothing was done they would resign.

MacRobert rejects the newspaper’s response, saying it does not offer any answer or explanation to his complaint.

My considerations

Lubisi’s response is meaningful, even if MacRobert does not think so. I note that the sentence following the one quoted by him in this regard ends with the words “insiders say” – clearly, the story ascribed the contested information to sources.

I have no reason to believe that the newspaper’s sources were not credible – in fact, MacRobert himself does not question their independence or credibility.

Possible conflict of interest

The article stated that the board cited finance and governance concerns arising from “a possible conflict of interest with her partner, Professor Marceline van Furth”.

Lubisi says the sources informed the newspaper of a possible conflict of interest “that the union could have on the foundation in that van Furth is the Desmond Tutu Chair of Medicine at Vrije Universiteit in the Netherlands”.

He says that MacRobert replied as follows to questions sent to the foundation: “Following a preliminary investigation, the Board … has asked … Tutu to step aside while a process is undertaken to tighten administrative procedures and practices, and mitigate potential for perceived conflicts of interests between the Foundation and its partners. The outcomes of the process will determine the future.”

The editor says on the strength of that statement, as quoted in the story, the newspaper believed that issues pertaining to misadministration and involving Tutu were of concern to the foundation.

MacRobert calls this response “hopeless” as it did not deal with the complaint and avoided the truth.

My considerations

The same argument as above applies here – the statement was about “concerns” people had expressed in terms of a possible conflict of interest. I have no reason to believe that those people did not have those concerns (irrespective of whether they had reason to be concerned).

Resigned, following clashes with Tutu

The article said a number of board members “have resigned from the foundation following clashes with [Tutu]”.

Lubisi concedes this was a mistake, since the newspaper’s sources indicated that it had in fact been staff members who resigned from the foundation following clashes with Tutu. “For this, we are prepared to amend the story accordingly and apologise…”

MacRobert accepts this apology – but adds that the public should be informed.

My considerations

According to Lubisi’s admission, as well as MacRobert’s acceptance thereof, I accept it was a mistake to state that board members – instead of members of staff – had resigned from the foundation following clashes with Tutu.

‘Up in arms’; women’s union

The journalist reported that two insiders told the newspaper that board members “had been up in arms in December”; they said their unhappiness stemmed from the implications of the marriage between the reverend and Van Furth in that month. The reporter also stated insiders confirmed that “the board was concerned about possible conflicts of interest arising from the women’s union”.

Lubisi says that the sources informed the newspaper of the unhappiness of members of staff and the board (who had raised issues of possible conflict of interest following the marriage between Tutu and Van Furth, in that the former was the executive director of the foundation, while the latter was a Desmond Tutu Chair of medicine at the Vrije Universiteit.)

He adds that MacRobert has referred to mitigation of “perceived conflicts of interests between the Foundation and its partners”. This, the editor argues, confirmed that there was unhappiness (as stated in the story) which prompted the foundation to investigate further.

MacRobert replies the story said that the unhappiness resulted “from the implications of the marriage” – which is “totally untrue”. He adds that the newspaper did not respond to his complaint about a “concern” arising from the women’s union – “so the lie stands”.

My considerations

My argument is (again) the same.

I note that Lubisi did not respond directly to the reference to the women’s league, but I interpreted his response as inclusive of that aspect as well

No response

The story said the foundation “did not respond to specific questions from City Press on what exactly had led to Tutu’s suspension”.

Lubisi replies that the story quoted MacRobert, and argues that he had not distanced himself from the comments attributed to him. He submits that on February 11 the newspaper sent a list of eight questions to Roger Friedman of Oryx Media, a company that had been running media issues for the foundation. “Roger responded to the questions on behalf of the Foundation the following day. He even told us to attribute the response to Mr MacRobert.”

MacRobert says he accepts this response – “the only point of agreement”.

My considerations

This part of the complaint needs no further argument.

Finding

The statement that a number of board members (instead of members of staff) had resigned from the foundation following clashes with Tutu was in breach of Section 1.1 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct that says, “The media shall take care to report news … accurately…”

The rest of the complaint is dismissed.

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

City Press is cautioned for its statement that board members – instead of members of staff – had resigned from the foundation following clashes with Tutu.

The newspaper is directed to publish, on page 2, a correction to this effect.

 

The text, which should be approved by me, should:

• start with the sanction (using the word “caution”); 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