DR SHUAIB MANJRA APPLICANT
AND
CAPE TIMES RESPONDENT
MATTER NO: 1148/05/2015
DECISION ON APLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
[1] In its editorial of 13 April 2015, the Cape Times (“respondent”) expressed itself in support of the nuclear peace deal concluded between Iran and 5 major powers. This attracted a response from Mr Eric Marx, Chair Cape South African Jewish Board of Deputies. In his article entitled “Papers baffling stance on Iran”, which was published on an op-ed, Mr Marx criticized the editorial; he felt that it had been partisan in its support of the deal, in favour of Iran. He argued that the editorial wrongly portrayed Iran as a peace loving country; he mentioned several violent incidents which he says were supported by Iran, ranging from Norway to South America, East Africa and the Middle East.
[2] In his article, published by the respondent also on an op-ed on 4 may 2015, Dr Shuaib Manjra (“applicant”), joined issue with Mr Marx, and defended the respondent’s editorial. He portrayed both the good and bad side of Iran, but, in the process, criticized Israel and some of its policies such as towards the Palestinians. In the process, he criticised Mr Marx.
[3] In its turn, applicant’s response to Mr Marx attracted a response by Mr Glen Heneck also on an op-ed, published on 12 May 2015. Needless to say, Mr Marx criticized the applicant in a number of respects (I return to this later).
[4] The applicant wrote a response to Mr Heneck, but the respondent refused to publish it. After failed numerous attempts and much effort to persuade respondent, the applicant eventually lodged a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman. He wanted “either the publication of his article in full or alternatively a correction in the Cape Times pointing Heck’s disingenuousness in his response.”
[5] In its defence, respondent, through its journalist, responded as follows: “I have spoken to the Editor of the Cape Times Mr Aneez Salie who feels that the topic at hand is a serious one however an op-ed letter is within the sole discretion of the editor regarding the question of whether to publish a letter or not”. The journalist then referred to a decision of the Ombudsman in a previous matter, namely, .Allister Sparks vs Cape Times, which the applicant says is distinguishable from the present case.
[6] One of the complaints the applicant has against Heneck’s article is that he was misinterpreted and attacked; he wanted to set the record straight. In his Ruling dated 17 June 2015, the Ombudsman dismissed applicant’s complaint.
[7] The Ombudsman stated in his Ruling that he had to consider whether the applicant had been misrepresented by Heneck. He held that even “if Heneck’s article has misinterpreted Manjra such a mistaken opinion was not serious enough”. The Ombudsman said that he had no mandate to interfere with editorial decision; accordingly, he could not order the respondent to publish applicant’s letter. The complaint was therefore dismissed; hence this application.
[8] I have read carefully Heneck’s response. I do not think it mounts the kind of attack applicant says it does. It might have been robust; but it was overall civil and restrained. It did not even appear to be personal; it kept to the substance of the debate. Turning to the issue of editorial discretion: one respects it; however, in suitable cases such a decision may have to attract some consequences. I do not believe that harm should be caused to individuals, and be allowed to stand, all in the name of editorial discretion. It is inconceivable that a paper can offer a platform for a scathing attack by A on B, but, in the name of editorial discretion, refuse to publish B’s response. However, the present is not such a case. As I have already said, Heneck was restrained and civil and really kept to the point which was the subject of debate; the issue is not whether he was right or wrong. I therefore hold that the Ombudsman’s Ruling cannot be faulted.
[9] For the reasons given above, the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; the application is therefore dismissed.
Dated this 14th day of August 2015
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel