Finding complaint number 4470
Date of article: 15 July 2019
Authors: Charl Blignaut and Abram Mashego
Page: 1
Online: Yes
Particulars
This finding was based on a written complaint from Eugene Mthethwa, written responses from Dumisane Lubisi of City Press, responses from Mr Mthethwa, further inquiries to both, and documents provided to the Ombudsman by Mr Lubisi.
Complaint
Mr Eugene Mthethwa, a well-known kwaito musician, complains that an article in City Press that ran under the headline, “The R100m arts funding scandal”, named him as having received funding from the Department of Arts and Culture when in fact he did not receive funding; he also complains that he was not given a right of reply, and further that he was mentioned in a paragraph concerning the Cultural and Creative Industries Federation of SA (CCIFSA) in which he no longer holds elected office.
The clauses of the Press Code he complains in terms of are the following:
The media shall:
1.2 present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarization;
1.3 present only what may reasonably be true as fact; opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such; as well as
1.8 seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication, except when they might be prevented from reporting, or evidence destroyed, or sources intimidated. Such a subject should be afforded reasonable time to respond; if unable to obtain comment, this shall be stated;
1.1 The article under the headline, ‘R100m arts funding scandal,’ with a strap that read: “Whistle-blowers claim that Mzansi Golden Economy fund’s millions are allocated to artists without checks and balances” focused on what it called “questionable funding deals, amounting to more than R100 million,” that had “rocked” the Department of Arts and Culture led by Minister Nathi Mthethwa. The amount was for the 2018/2019 funding period.
1.2 It listed a number of multi-million funding deals that “senior sources” in the Department said were “questionable”. These included R36 million over a three year period to Ladysmith Black Mambazo “to teach traditional Zulu song and dance – and to make an album with former president Jacob Zuma”; R50 million to the National Empowerment Fund (NEF) “without the required committee approvals”; and R20 million to the Indoni SA cultural organisation, “which had already held its Miss Cultural SA Festival by the time it was paid.”
1.3 The Department’s own rules – sourced from a document obtained by City Press – are that any funding projects over R1-million for individuals need to be approved by a committee; the threshold is R2 million for “events and tours”.
1.4 The article claims this did not happen in many of the cases.
1.5 It describes the Department as “wracked by suspicions and suspensions”: a deputy director-general had resigned after being suspended allegedly for singing “a song linked to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s “new dawn”. It also says two senior department officials – director-general Vusumuzi Mkhize and chief director Charles Mabaso – “were privy to decisions to fund the projects” without following the department’s own policies.
1.6 It quotes a department spokesperson as saying there was nothing irregular about the funding.
1.7 It says “sources” said “at least eight projects currently funded by the state appear to be procedurally irregular.” Six of these “contested beneficiaries” are “noted on a document called “List of unsolicited or walk-in proposals received by cultural development unit to be assessed for funding in 2018/19”.
“They are all paid for from the department’s R340 million annual arts funding scheme, called the Mzansi Golden Economy.”
1.8 The “contested” beneficiaries of the projects, the article reports, include: Ladysmith Black Mambazo’s Amabaso Musical Productions, Living Legends Legacy Trust, Mzansi Broadcasting Academy, kwaito star Eugene Mthethwa, the World Gospel Powerhouse organisation, Indoni SA, and the Cultural and Creative Industries Federation of SA (CCIFSA).
1.9 The acting director-general, Charles Mabaso, had requested the funding as a chief director and then approved it as acting DG. The departmental spokesperson is quoted as saying there was nothing “untoward” in this.
1.10 It then goes on to outline the apparent ructions in the department, including a claim that artists from KwaZulu Natal were favoured – a claim dismissed by the spokesperson. He is quoted at some length giving examples to show this was not the case.
1.11 It also carries comment from some of the beneficiaries of the funding including Ladysmith Black Mambazo, the National Empowerment Fund, and radio broadcaster Linda Sibiya.
1.12 It mentions missing files and has quotes from unsuccessful applicants implying the funding decisions have been unfair.
1.13 Near the end of the article it mentions Mr Mthethwa again in relation to the CCIFSA: Under a sub-head: THE FEDERATION AND THE KWAITO STAR, it explains that when the state-funded federation of “creatives” was established in 2015, “there was a battle between actor Tony Kgoroge and kwaito star Mthethwa over who would head it. The federation reportedly received R15 million from the arts and culture department, which the musician claimed was unlawfully administered.”
“Ccifsa has now been earmarked for another R12 million to stage this year’s second annual Usiba Creative and Cultural Industries Awards, despite an investigation by the SIU for the R15 million.”
CCIFSA is quoted as saying the money was accounted for and that “it was not under investigation, but the department was.”
Mr Eugene Mthethwa
2.1 Mr Mthethwa complains that the story mentioned his name in the context of “one of the beneficiaries of irregularly processed applications for funding.”
2.2 He says he did not receive funding for 2018/19 and as result has been “at loggerheads” with the department. He challenges City Press to provide evidence of the funding.
He explains that he was funded in 2017 to the tune of R225 000 “which by virtue of the stated policy, didn't have to be clubbed with the rest of irregularly approved projects” – in other words the funding was below the R1-million threshold for individuals.
2.3 He also says he is not in the leadership of CCIFSA yet the newspaper, by implication, associates him with its “sins”.
“I have been one person very vocal against the organisation’s failure to account.” He cites previous City Press articles on his stance.
2.4 He charges that the article was meant to “tarnish” his name, “especially now that CCIFSA is heading towards it election conference this month end.”
2.5 He objects to the fact that he was mentioned for, as he put it, “my sin as having contested the elections that I lost” in CCIFSA, saying he was “now accused of embezzling the funds of that structure…I do not see the logic in having lost the elections but then drawn in the irregularities of a structure that I do not lead.”
2.6 He also says he was not given the right of reply yet his name “was dragged under the cloud” because of issues that do not relate to him.
“In the story everyone accused is listed as having had a declared amount of funding but no figures are attached to my name and the project which I was funded for [allegedly] irregularly.”
2.7 He asks for an apology and for the publication to “retract such sweeping statements .”
Dumisane Lubisi for City Press
2.8 In response, Mr Lubisi said Mr Mthethwa’s name was listed in a departmental document obtained by the newspaper entitled “List of unsolicited or walk-in proposals received by cultural Development Unit to be assessed for funding 2018/19” , which was signed April 2018 .
“The document is clear that a project by Mr Mthethwa was to be assessed for funding to the tune of R247 000 for the 2018/19 financial year. A source, who is aware of how the funds were disbursed, informed City Press that Mr Mthethwa’s project was assessed and approved for payment, but we could not independently verify this. The story itself is clear that all the projects, including Mr Mthethwa’s funding were to be paid from the Mzansi Golden Economy.”
2.9 He said the newspaper spoke to sources who indicated that the names listed on the document were “red-flagged and contracted without following correct procedure” These sources also indicated that files regarding these projects were missing from DAC's head office in Pretoria.
“Mr Mthethwa confirms that he received funding of R225 000 in 2017 and that this was below a threshold used by DAC to approve funding and therefore his name should not have been in the story. City Press quoted the above listed document to show that Mr Mthethwa’s project was assessed for funding, as to whether this was below the threshold or not is immaterial since his name is contained in the document. He cannot use the DAC’s threshold count as a basis that his name should have been omitted.”
2.10 On the issues concerning CCIFSA, Mr Lubisi says the newspaper used the information “for context and background on the story. The statement regarding his fights with CCIFSA is factual and was used in a balanced manner and within context.”
2.11 On the question of the right to reply, Mr Lubisi says Mr Mthethwa “was contacted several times”. The reporter, Abram Mashego tried to reach him once from his cellphone and subsequently from the landline in the office. “Several voicemail messages were left for Mr Mthethwa but none of these were returned. Had he taken the time to respond to the calls, he would have had an opportunity to answer the questions that City Press wanted to pose to him.”
Had he returned the calls, issues that he raises in his complaint – such as his argument that he never received funding for 2018/19 but only for 2017 – could have been “clarified”.
2.12 He also argues that had Mr Mthethwa contacted the newspaper post-publication, instead of laying a complaint with the Ombudsman, his concerns would have been dealt with “speedily”.
“This is based on the fact that Mr Mthethwa has access to City Press and subsequent to this story, the paper published another of his stories about an ordeal he had at one of the private hospitals and the effects to his life.”
This shows that the newspaper is accessible to Mr Mthethwa. If he was unhappy with the story “he would have been afforded an audience and his grievance corrected.”
2.13 In any event, says Mr Lubisi, the newspaper would be happy to incorporate his right of reply, including clarification over the funding dispute he had with DAC.
Further arguments
2.14 In his response, Mr Mthethwa reiterates that he was funded for the year 2017, not 2018/19. The amount was for about R225 000. The lack of the second tranche of funding in 2018/19 is the subject of a dispute between himself and the department. “I am actually entangled in a fight with the department about the reasons why my project was never processed especially after the public spat with the minister.”
2.15 He says the article “bundles me with projects funded irregularly to create an impression that my project did not follow due processes which is not true.” The article itself states that only projects above R1-million have to go through an adjudication process.
2.16 On the CCIFSA issue, he says City Press “has written a number of articles where I have been up in arms against the department on the CCIFSA issues.”
2.17 On the right of reply, he says, it “cannot be correct” that the newspaper “suddenly” has no right contact numbers for him unless this is “deliberate to justify the ulterior motives it had to drag my name unfairly into the mess.”
3.1 There are two key elements at the heart of this dispute: one is over the accuracy of the reporting, the other is whether Mr Mthethwa had a fair chance at the right of reply.
3.2 In defence of its story, City Press sent the Ombud’s office two documents: one was apparently from the Department of Arts and Culture, dated April 2018, and entitled “LIST OF UNSOLICITED OR WALK-INN(sic) PROPOSALS RECEIVED BY CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT UNIT TO BE ASSESSED FOR FUNDING IN 2018/19.”
The other was the reporter, Mr Abram Mashego’s, cell-phone record.
3.3 The document from the department contains a list of 28 names of projects, alongside of which are the names individuals (presumably responsible for them) described as beneficiaries, a column denoting the sector they represent, and the amount.
The document includes some, but not all the names and projects mentioned in the story; likewise there are names and projects in the document not mentioned in the story.
3.4 I was concerned by the phrase “to be assessed”: it indicated to me that not all the projects and individuals may have received funding.
3.5 I checked with another beneficiary on the list, who confirmed his organisation had received one tranche of the funding for 2018/19 but not a second.
3.6 Mr Mthethwa’s name is on the document as a beneficiary, his project is named as “Documenting the history of kwaito”, and the amount next to his name is R247 500.
Yet Mr Mthethwa insisted on more than one occasion that he did not get money in 2018/19 but got an amount of about R225 000 in 2017/18.
3.7 It is very difficult for me to discern the facts of this matter, but I cannot think of a reason he would have to tell me he did not get funding for 2018/19.
He himself pointed out that he was embroiled in a dispute with the Minister – over another matter – and that the same minister, Nathi Mthethwa, had threatened to sue him over a claim he made when he believed his life was in danger. Again, whether this is true or not, I cannot judge, but it is clear that his relationship with the minister is not a happy one. Several news reports in early 2019 referred to this.[1]
This tends to give credence to his claim that he did not receive the funds he had put in for.
3.8 However, was City Press justified in believing this to be the case?
The document upon which it based its story proved to be correct with regard to some of the other beneficiaries they quoted. Moreover, the paper solicited comments from most of those it named
I asked Mr Lubisi if anyone of these individuals or organisations named in the story had complained to the newspaper, and he replied only one, the National Empowerment Fund, which complained its response had not been fully reflected. However, this name is not on the list of projects “to be assessed.”.
3.9 The truth of whether Mr Mthethwa was a beneficiary or not is closely linked to the right of reply. Had the reporter spoken to Mr Mthethwa, he would have told them, as he told our office, that he received funding in 2017/18 but not 2018/19.
3.10 On the right of reply: the cell-phone records of the reporter show one call to a number they said was Mr Mthethwa’s with the prefix 061.
However in his correspondence with us, Mr Mthethwa provided a contact number with the prefix 071. When I emailed him to ask if he had another number he provided one with the prefix 063. It was on this number that I spoke with him.
It may have been that the reporter had an incorrect number for Mr Mthethwa. At any rate, that is not the fault of the complainant. There were other ways of getting hold of him. It is clear that he had an extant relationship with City Press as it had solicited comment from him on at least one occasion in the two months prior to the story being published.[2]
3.11 So the fact that he did not respond to voice-mail messages indicates he may well not have received them as they went to a wrong number.
3.12 He is also active on various social media platforms; it may have been possible to contact him through one of those.
If City Press was going to name him as having received funding on the basis of a document that was headed proposals “to be assessed”, it should have tried harder to get hold of him.
3.13 Mr Mthethwa’s last complaint, about being mentioned in the paragraph that referenced the election he lost for leadership of CCIFSA, has little merit though.
This part of the news story makes it clear that not only was he not responsible for the alleged maladministration of R15 million in funds, but that he actively opposed it:
“When Ccifsa, a state-funded federation of creatives, was established in 2015, there was a battle between actor Tony Kgoroge and kwaito star Mthethwa over who would head it. The federation reportedly received R15 million from the arts and culture department, which the musician claimed was unlawfully administered.”
3.14 The context of the paragraph makes it clear to any reasonable reader that he was neither in charge of CCIFSA at the time of the alleged maladministration, and in fact had actively brought attention to it.
3.15 It is also worth pointing out that the story is a long and complex one: its main focus is on alleged ructions in the Department of Arts and Culture and on some apparently questionable funding decisions. The focus of the story was not Mr Mthethwa and in fact he features in a relatively minor way.
3.16 Nonetheless, he is entitled to have his views fairly reflected in the newspaper.
City Press in its initial response offered Mr Mthethwa a right of reply. Mr Lubisi assured me the offer still stands.
Finding
On the claim that City Press has transgressed clauses 1.1,,1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code that:
The media shall:
1.2 present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarization;
1.3 present only what may reasonably be true as fact; opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such;
City Press was reporting on the basis of a document that appeared to be reasonably true. Even though it said in its heading, “Projects to be assessed”, the paper checked facts with other names on the list; there was no response that would have led the paper to believe that it was not true that those listed did not get the funds.
However, I should stress that this does not mean I disbelieve Mr Mthethwa when he says he got funding only in 2017 and not in 2018. In fact, his subsequent conflict with the minister indicates anything but a rosy relationship with the department.
My task though is to determine whether a newspaper had reasonable grounds for believing that he did. In the absence of Mr Mthethwa’s comment, those grounds existed.
But in terms of clause 1.8, the right to reply, I am not satisfied that City Press exhausted its efforts to get hold of Mr Mthethwa. I am puzzled by the incongruity of the phone numbers provided by itself and Mr Mthethwa. If the reporter had been serious about getting hold of him, it should have texted him to confirm whether the number it was trying was the correct one. It could also have sent him a message on any of the social media platforms he is active on.
I find that City Press has transgressed clause 1.8 of the Code. It should apologise to Mr Mthethwa for not affording him the right of reply. Moreover, it should make good on its offer to allow him a right of reply.
If the leaked document from the Department is incorrect in terms of who did or did not get funding, this is a matter of public interest; Mr Mthethwa has every right to put his case, especially as he says he did not receive funding.
This is a Tier 2 offence. The rest of the complaint is dismissed.
Sanction
The newspaper should apologise for not affording Mr Mthethwa a right to reply. It should also publish his right to reply – of 300 words – should Mr Mthethwa wish to avail himself of this offer.
The apology should:
Appeal
The Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za.
Pippa Green
Press Ombudsman
August 5, 2020