Appeal Decision: Prophet Samuel Radebe vs. The Star

PROPHET SAMUEL RADEBE                                                                APPLICANT

versus

[1]     Prophet Samuel Radebe (“applicant”) lodged a complaint against The Star (“respondent”) in respect of an article which appeared in the respondent on 30 June 2016, with the headline: “Commission chair death threats: man in dock.” The person referred to in the headline was not applicant at all, but apparently a member of his church.  The article did not only talk about the man, but also about the applicant.  It said two things about him, which formed the core of his complaint. Firstly, that the applicant was a controversial person and, secondly, that media “reports claim that Radebe had forced his congregation to gather earth from their relatives’ graves and worship carrying spears.”  His complaint to the Office of the Press Ombud was that both reports statements were false, and therefore tarnished his reputation.

[2]     In its defence, the respondent said that applicant was indeed a controversial person.  Respondent referred to the fact that he had failed to appear before an official commission of inquiry.   Regarding the second complaint, the respondent argued that it merely reported what the other media had reported, and stated so.

[3]     The Ombud dismissed the complaint in its entirety.  He agreed with the respondent that the applicant was indeed a controversial person.  He also held that the respondent had stated that the allegation that the applicant had given certain instructions to his congregants came from other media reports.

[4]     I have considered submissions by both parties on the application.  I can only grant leave to appeal if I find that there are reasonable prospects that the Appeals Panel may find that the Ombud was wrong.  In my view, the Ombud was right.  It really cannot be said that the applicant is not controversial. The mere failure to appear before an official commission of inquiry creates some controversy, at least until exculpatory reasons are given.  As regard the second complaint, it is clear from the quotation in paragraph 1 above that the respondent did in fact mention that the alleged bizarre instructions to his congregants came from other media.  Perhaps the applicant should have lodged his complaint against those media.

[5]     For the reasons given above, the application is dismissed for lack of any prospects of success before the Appeals Panel of the Press Council.

Dated this 23^rd day of August 2016

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel