Appeal Decision: Ravana Jacobs vs Beeld
SUMMARY
The headline to the story in dispute read, Landdros se ‘wangedrag’ bekyk (Magistrate’s ‘misconduct’ examined). This was published on 19 March 2015.
This ruling by the Chair of the Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.
The story was about the ethics committee of the Magistrate’s Commission that was examining possible misbehaviour by Ravana Jacobs, a “magistrate” in Mmabatho. Solidarity reportedly asked the Minister of Justice to investigate her for filing twelve false charges of racism against a colleague (Jacques Swanepoel).
Jacobs inter alia complained that she had never:
- been a magistrate in Klerksdorp – she was the senior prosecutor;
- worked in Pietermaritzburg – she worked in Howick, Camperdown and Hammersdale; and
- laid charges against Swanepoel – the charges were filed by the NPA.
Dismissing the bulk of the complaint, the Ombud accepted Beeld’s arguments that (inter alia):
- Jacobs worked in the Pietermaritzburg jurisdiction, which included Howick, Camperdown and Hammersdale;
- the CCMA case was about the fact that Swanepoel had been found guilty by the NPA because of her charges against him;
- the commission found she had lied under oath;
- the fact that Jacobs was not aware of the complaint against her, did not make it untrue; and
- the commission did not give the journalist anything specific on which it could have asked her for comment.
Jacobs then applied for leave to appeal.
Judge Ngoepe dismissed the application, because:
- he agreed with the Ombud’s ruling; and
- even if it was the NPA which brought the charges against Swanepoel and Jacobs was just a witness, the fact remained that she did file the complaints.
THE RULING ITSELF
RAVANA JACOBS APPLICANT
versus
BEELD RESPONDENT
MATTER NO: 103/03/2015
DECISION: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
[1] Magistrate Ravana Jacobs (“applicant”) lodged a complaint against Beeld (“respondent”) in respect of an articled which appeared on 19 March 2015, headlined “Landdros se ‘wandrag’ bekyk” (Magistrate’s ‘misconduct’ investigated”). The article reported that applicant had levelled certain allegations of racism against Krugersdorp Senior Prosecutor, Mr Swanepoel. Applicant is now a magistrate in Mafikeng. Mr Swanepoel was dismissed, but later re-instated by the CCMA. According to the article, Mr Swanepoel had been dismissed by the National Prosecuting Authority on the basis of charges of racism levelled against him by the applicant. The story also mentioned that the arbitration decision said that applicant lied under oath, and that she lied so as to get a transfer back to Pietermaritzburg where she previously worked. It was stated that as a result, the Magistrates Commission received a complaint of misconduct against applicant.
[2] The applicant’s complaints were, briefly, the following:
2.1 she was never a magistrate at Krugersdorp; (but it should be stated though that the article did not say she was),
2.2 that she did not work in Pietermaritzburg, but in Howick, Camperdown and Hammersdale; but the respondent says these areas fall under Pietermaritzburg;
2.3 she did not lay charges against Mr Swanepoel; this was done by the NPA;
2.4 responden misspelt her name to read “Revana” instead of “Ravana”;
2.5 she was not contact for comment;
2.6 her photo was used without her permission.
[3] The respondent conceded that applicant’s name had been misspelt, but that that was how it was spelt on the documents they received. Regarding the other complaints, respondent stuck to its guns, insisting that the story relied accurately on the contents of the arbitration decision. The Ombudsman, in his Ruling dated 15 May 2015, dismissed all the complaints, except the one relating to the misspelling of applicant’s first name; he reprimanded the respondents. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal the Ruling of the Ombudsman.
[4] For an application for leave to appeal to succeed, the applicant must show reasonable prospects of appeal before the Appeals Panel. The question therefore is whether the applicant does show such prospects.
[5] Applicant argues that it was the NPA which brought the charges against Mr Swanepoel; she was just a witness. Even if that were the case, the fact is that she did file the complaints. In a broad sense, it can still be said she brought charges; even if the ultimate decision to charge Mr Swanepoel was taken by the NPA. The issue of lying under oath is very important especially to a judicial officer. But I accept that the Ombudsman has satisfied himself of the contents of the arbitration decision. It is, at any rate, a matter which, according to the applicant, the NPA is taking further. It must be said, in all fairness to the applicant, that if the respondent was aware that the arbitration decision was being challenged, there was a strong case for mentioning this because it is obvious that the Magistrates Commission can never take the question of lying under oath further without awaiting the outcome of the judicial process.
[6] Nevertheless, for the above reasons, as well as those given by the Ombudsman, I do not think that the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal; the application is therefore dismissed.
Dated this 7th day of July 2015
Judge B M Ngoepe; Chair, Appeals Panel
