Appeal Decision: City Press Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi

SUMMARY

The headline to the column in dispute read, The weird world of politics: Tell no lies (published on 11 January 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 relevant text read, “Despite his claim to have participated in the struggle, IFP president Mangosuthu Buthelezi has still not heard of Amilcar Cabral’s quote: ‘Tell no lies, claim no easy victories’. In his online letter this week, Buthelezi sought credit for the success of many isiZulu-speaking leaders of society, saying the least they could do was to say thank you Mtwana.”

Buthelezi complained that the column inaccurately, unfairly and misleadingly:

• implied that he had not participated in the liberation struggle;
• stated that he still had not heard of Amilcar Cabral’s quote “tell no lies, claim no easy victories”;
• said that he had sought credit for the success of many isiZulu-speaking leaders; and
• said that he had written that those concerned should say, “thank you, Mtwana”.

He concluded that the column stirred up animosity against him; that it displayed political bias and a lack of objectivity towards him; that it disparaged his integrity, character and legacy; and that it cast doubt on the truthfulness and value of his work.

The ombud dismissed the bulk of the complaint, mainly because the statements in the column were presented as opinions – to which the newspaper was entitled. However, City Press was directed to apologise to Buthelezi for falsely, misleadingly, irresponsibly and unnecessarily harmfully stating, as fact, that he had asked for a word of thanks.

The newspaper then applied for leave to appeal.

Judge Ngoepe said he agreed with the Ombud’s arguments. He remarked, “As the Ombudsman says, there ‘is not even the slightest indication in Buthelezi’s newsletter that he sought … a word of thanks, let alone that he made an actual statement to this effect’.  As the Ombudsman says, even ‘satire needs some shred of truth with which to mock’.”

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

THE RULING ITSELF

CITY PRESS                                                                                         APPLICANT

versus

PRINCE MANGOSUTHU BUTHELEZI                                           RESPONDENT                                                     MATTER 06/02/2015

[1]     In its edition of 11 January 2015, City Press (“applicant”), under the heading “The weird world of politics: Tell no lies”, subhead: “Tell no lies”, said the following of Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi (“respondent”): “Despite his claim to have participated in the struggle, IFP president Mangosuthu Buthelezi has still not heard of Amilcar Cabral’s quote: “Tell no lies, claim no easy victory”.  All this was in reaction to respondent’s online letter in which he pointed out the educational achievements by the former KwaZulu government, of which he was the head.  The applicant went further to say in the letter, “Buthelezi sought credit for the success of many isiZulu-speaking leaders of society, saying the least they could do was say thank you Mtwana.”  This particular statement was based on the following part of the newsletter: “Many of the business and political leaders, and the working journalists, analysts and academics, went through our schools …. The schooling they received under Inkatha enabled them to become active, competent and influential”.

[2]     The respondent raised a number of complaints, most of which were dismissed by the Ombudsman in his Ruling of 13 March 2015.  I will not deal with them; I only refer to, and briefly deal with, the one which was upheld and in respect of which leave to appeal is sought.  That complaint, paraphrased, was that applicant wrongly said that respondent wanted the people who received education under the former KwaZulu government to say thank you to him.  The Ombudsman, however, found that the respondent did not seek any “thank you” for himself. Despite applicant’s contention that what was said was satire, the Ombudsman ruled that even then, it should have been based on some truth.  He ordered the applicant to apologize to the respondent; hence this application.

[3]     The application was lodged two days out of time.  The applicant has asked for condonation, with some explanation.  The respondent does not oppose the application for condonation; furthermore, the application was out of time with only a few days and, finally, there would be no prejudice to the respondent if it were to be granted.  Accordingly, the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is condoned.

[4]     For an application for leave to appeal to succeed, the applicant must show reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel. I must therefore assess that.  In doing so, I have to look at, and consider, the reasons given by the Ombudsman. I do agree with him that it was presented by the applicant, in the form of a fact, that respondent said people did not say “Thank you Mtwana”.  As the Ombudsman says, there “is not even the slightest indication in Buthelezi’s newsletter that he sought … a word of thanks, let alone that he made an actual statement to this effect.”  As the Ombudsman says, even “satire needs some shred of truth with which to mock”.

[5]     In its application for leave to appeal, applicant argues that the Ruling “if left unchallenged, will have unintended implications to how we write articles in satirist manner in future”.  I do not agree; as said earlier, such articles must be based on the truth.  Significantly, a few lines down, the applicant says: “… the column prides itself for taking serious matters and writes them in a manner that is fun but to get the point across” (own emphasis).  Surely that point, which is to be gotten across, must be based on the truth; one cannot seek to get across an incorrect point.  Applicant also argues that what was said was an interpretation based on what respondent had said.  That interpretation is not sustainable: as said by the Ombudsman, nowhere does respondent in his newsletter say he seeks a “thank you” for himself.  In fact, as I went through the newsletter, I could not help noticing that, in speaking about the educational achievements of the then KwaZulu government, respondent kept of using, as they say nowadays, the collective “we”, as opposed to “I” (himself); for example: “… we harvest … what we saved” (own emphasis”).

[6]     For all the reasons given above, I hold that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; the application is therefore dismissed.

Dated this 5^th day of May 2015

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel