Appeal Decision: Mia R, R and S vs The Star

MIA R, R AND S                                                              APPLICANTS

versus

THE STAR                                                                       RESPONDENT

[1]  The Applicants are Drs R and R Mia, and their father, Mr Sayed Mia.  The Respondent is The Star.  The Applicants lodged complaints against the Respondent, which complaints were all dismissed by the Ombudsman in his Ruling dated 4 July 2014.

[2]   Mr S Mia was charged with corruption, along with, inter alia, a government official, Mr Simamane.  The Respondent produced three stories related to this.  There were also pictures of Mr Mia and his two sons.

[3]   The complaints, as summarized by the Ombudsman, were:

·the mentioning of R40m in connection with the fraud and corruption charges was false or misleading.

·The use of the pictures of Drs R and R Mia (accused’s sons) were irrelevant and unnecessary and depicted them as a syndicate.

·The views of the whistle-blower were presented as facts, thus prejudicing the pending criminal case.

[4]   The crux of the story was about a government official facing dismissal, in connection with charges of corruption, involving an amount of R40m, between himself and, inter alia, the complainant’s father, Mr Sayed Hoosen Mia. The complainants say that the amount of R40m was not mentioned in the charge sheet.  The journalist, on the other hand, says he got the figure from the Minister’s legal adviser.  The Ombudsman had no reason to doubt that the journalist did in fact get the information from where he said he got it from.  I agree with him.

[5]   As far as the use of the pictures is concerned, the complainants say that this was vindictive and unbecoming, because the story was about the government official.  The use of the picture, they contend, was irrelevant and unnecessary and harmful to the two brothers. The Star’s response is that it was the father himself who, in support of his application for bail, mentioned in his affidavit to the court that he had two sons who were medical doctors.  He himself chose to mention the two sons and their profession, for that matter in exclusion of his other son who was also a professional, but apparently not a medical doctor.  For this reason, contended the Respondent, it was entitled to use the pictures of the two sons.

[6]   The Ombudsman’s view was that the case was not only about the public official, but also about Sayed Mia. Secondly, that although the story did not refer to the two sons, it was Sayed Mia himself who had mentioned them in court.  There was therefore nothing wrong in using their pictures.  Thirdly, the story did not convey that the two sons were a part of a syndicate.  Finally, the Respondent was not obliged to get permission to use the pictures of the two sons, given the context.

[7]   The Ombudsman also found that the views of the whistle-blower were not presented as facts.

[8]   In my view, there was nothing wrong in publishing the pictures.  Mr Mia himself specifically brought his two doctor sons into the picture, clearly to bolster his application for admission to bail.  Given the context of the case, the focus being on the official, I don’t think there is a message of a syndicate in relation to the two sons.  For the above reasons, considered together with those given by the Ombudsman, I do not think that there are any reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is turned down.

Dated this 29^th day of October 2014

Judge B M Ngoepe: Chair; Appeals Panel