Appeal Decision: Mike Nqobile vs Timeslive

MIKE NQOBILE                                                               APPLICANT

versus

TIMES LIVE                                                                     RESPONDENT

                                                                Matter 38/10/2014

[1]  Mr Mike Nqobile is the applicant in this matter, seeking leave to appeal the Ruling of the Ombudsman, dated 18 November 2014 dismissing his complaints against Times Live, the respondent.

[2]   The applicant had filed a complaint with the office of the Press Ombudsman against the respondent.  The complaint followed a story published by the respondent on 28 October 2014, in connection with the killing of the late Sengo Meyiwa, who was a well-known soccer player in the country.  To contextualize the matter: the deceased was shot and killed at the home of one Kelly Khumalo.  The headline read: “’I was hacked,’ says man who apparently claimed Meyiwa was shot by Khumalo’s ‘brother-in-law’”.  The man referred to was the applicant, using the name “Manqoba Oliphant.”

The content of the story went on to convey that he claimed in his facebook posting, that the deceased was shot by the boyfriend of Khumalo’s sister when he tried to intervene in an altercation between the two.  Applicant’s picture also appeared on the facebook.

[3]   The applicant denied that the message on the facebook had been originated by him, even though it was on his facebook and under the name referred to above.  He complained: “The story published (based on the facebook information) … give the reader the impression that I am the originator of the story.  This is incorrect.”  His second complaint was: The reporter did not contact him prior to publication, but only did so thereafter.  He also complained that the story exposed him and his family to threats, and left his integrity questionable.

[4]   The respondent’s response: respondent says that at no stage did it state that the posting originated or was done by the applicant.  In fact, it says, it was stated that the applicant said his facebook had been hacked.  Respondent concedes that it did not approach applicant prior to the publication, but says it could not do so as the applicant had used an alias on the facebook.  Secondly, respondent says that the applicant refused to be quoted, in a possible follow-up story; he also changed his versions.

[5]   In my view, the heading and the story made it clear that the applicant, whether in his real name or otherwise, alleged that his facebook had been hacked.  I think the reader would have understood that to mean that the applicant was not the originator.  The explanation by the respondent that it could not have been able to contact the “Mike Nqobile”, as he was using an alias, is reasonable.  The fact that the applicant was not willing to be quoted in a follow-up story was another problem, as also the allegation that he had at least three different versions.

[6]   I think the Ombudsman was correct in the manner in which he dealt with the matter.  I also agree with the reasons he gave for dismissing the complaints.  One point needs to be clarified: in its response, as also in the submissions opposing the application for leave to appeal, the respondent says the headline was accurate.  It seems to me the applicant understands his statement to mean that the headline correctly stated that he was the originator.  What the statement means is that the headline accurately stated the applicant’s claim that he was hacked (and therefore not the originator); nothing more.

[7]   For the reasons given, I conclude that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel, and the application for leave to appeal therefore fails.

Dated this 5th day of January 2015

Judge B M Ngoepe: Chair; Appeals Panel