Appeal Decision: Lizelle Strydom vs. Sunday Times
LIZELLE STRYDOM APPLICANT
versus
SUNDAY TIMES RESPONDENT
MATTER NO: 1022/03/2015
DECISION: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
[1] It its edition of 15 March 2015 Sunday Times (“respondent”) published an article under the headline “Uproar over ‘bantus’ moving in on West Coast hamlet”. The story was about a mine that was to open in the Hopefield area, Western Cape. While there were people who welcomed the opening of the mine on the ground that it would create about 400 new jobs, there were others who opposed it on, inter alia, environmental grounds. The respondent said that Lizelle Strydom (“applicant”) also opposed to the mine, said that the mine would attract a large number of black people to the area; it is said she used the word “bantus”. She was described as the former tourism officer of the area, forced to resign as a result of her remarks; it was also said that she used the picture of the old SA flag as a profile to her Facebook.
[2] The applicant complained to the office of the Press Ombudsman. She denied using the word “bantu”; that she said when the mine opened black people would be attracted, with squatter camps; that she was forced to resign as a result of what she had allegedly said. She said she resigned her post as a result of political interference. She did not say the mining would destroy the culture of the West Coast, but that it might destroy the environment as there was an “underground watershed”. She complained that the article depicted her as a racist.
[3] The respondent insisted that the applicant did use the word “bantus”; and that she used an old South African flag on her Facebook page; this was seen by the reporter and the informant. There were one or two inconsequential errors the respondent conceded to, and offered to correct. The applicant also launched a stinging criticism of the respondent’s informant.
[4] In his Ruling of 9 April 2015, the Press Ombudsman dismissed the complaints. The applicant is now seeking leave to appeal the Ruling.
[5] Regarding the complaint against the alleged use of the word “bantus”: The Ombudsman says he called for the journalist’s notes, and the word “bantus” appears there. He was correct to give the benefit of doubt to the newspaper. In my view, it would be far-fetched to suggest that the journalist, subsequent to the interview, “doctored” her notes to put in the word “bantus”. As far as the use of the old South African flag is concerned, the journalist insisted that she saw this; so too the informant. But, the latter apart, it would also be stretching things to say that the whole thing was an invention. The final complaint was that applicant denied saying the culture of the West Coast would be destroyed. I have nothing to add onto what the Ombudsman said; and I agree with him.
[6] In her application for leave to appeal, the applicant says the Ombudsman did not take into account all the points she raised in her original complaint. I do not agree. The Ombudsman dealt systematically with all the complaints, which he correctly identified and dealt with seriatim. Applicant also says the article was written without prior research. The truth, however, is that the journalist did not only rely on the informant, but also on the actual interview with the applicant, notes of which were furnished to the Ombudsman. Applicant also says the article was supposed to deal with the issue of the mine, and the impact it would have on the environment, as also to deal with her reason for resigning. She says the kind of heading given to the story blew it into a sensationalist racist story. She might be right in saying so, but the journalist wrote the story on the basis of the actual interview they had; the errors that were conceded were corrected. The Ombudsman has correctly dealt with all these issues.
[7] For an applicant to succeed, she needed to show reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel, in the event the application for leave to appeal is granted. Having considered the reasons given by the Ombudsman in his Ruling, I am of the view that the applicant does not show such prospects. The application is therefore dismissed.
Dated this 6th day of May 2015
Judge B M Ngoepe; Chair, Appeals Panel
