Cleopas Maunye vs. Mpumalanga News
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Cleopas Maunye and those of Bongani Hlatshwayo, editor of the Mpumalanga News newspaper.
Complaint
Maunye is complaining about a letter by the editor in the Mpumalanga News, headlined Editor writes to leader of BRA (the Bushbuckridge Residents Association), dated 12 November 2015.
He complains that the letter, directed to him personally, was attacking him and that it inter alia made the following statements malicious statements which have harmed his dignity and reputation:
· “I’m surprised you question our opinion when it’s not your competency to do so”;
· “Stop being a reactionary in the legislative”; and
· “Be man enough and stand your own ground, instead of being a parrot.”
The text
The editor mainly reacted to Maunye’s statement on Facebook that the newspaper should leave the provincial legislator alone and stick to the reporting of news. He told Maunye he would not be told by anyone, including him, to shut up; he also called him a reactionary and a parrot, and voiced his opinion that Maunye has exposed himself as a follower of the EFF.
The newspaper’s response
Hlatshwayo says the issue stems from Maunye’s comment on Facebook in reaction to his editorial comment (published on 5 November 2015), in which he addressed members of the legislature about the election of a new premier.
The editor adds that the above prompted Maunye to ridicule him of Facebook stating, “Since when is Mpumalanga News part of the legislature? It will be best if you guys focus on reporting news, this is what you are competent on.”
He argues that such a statement implied that, whatever happened in the legislature, was of no concern to the newspaper. “It was on those grounds that I wrote the open letter to him, to remind him that there’s freedom of the press everywhere in this country and our job is to be the watchdogs of society.”
Hlatshwayo concludes that Maunye owes the newspaper an apology, but on his part he also apologises for calling him a reactionary and a parrot.
My considerations
Section 7 of the Press Code, headlined Comment, reads as follows:
| 7.1 The press shall be entitled to comment upon or criticise any actions or events of public interest provided such comments or criticisms are fairly and honestly made.
7.2 Comment by the press shall be presented in such manner that it appears clearly that it is comment, and shall be made on facts truly stated or fairly indicated and referred to. 7.3 Comment by the press shall be an honest expression of opinion, without malice or dishonest motives, and shall take fair account of all available facts which are material to the matter commented upon. |
The Constitutional Court (Judge Edwin Cameron) has ruled (McBride vs. The Citizen, April 2011) along the same lines as follows: “Criticism is protected even if extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it expresses an honestly held opinion, without malice, on a matter of public interest on facts that are true.”
From this, I can only conclude that the editor had the right to express his views in the way he did.
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 Ombudsman
