Ruling by the Press Ombud
24 May 2017
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Belinda Walter and those of Dumisane Lubisi, editor of the City Press newspaper.
Walter is complaining about a story in City Press of 9 April 2017, headlined Spooks and the race haunt Sars.
Complaint
Walter complains that:
· the following statement was out of context: “In e-mails at the time, Walter said (‘intelligence agent Mr Ferdi’) Fryer had explained to her he ‘represented persons who wished to replace the leadership of Sars and the minister of finance’…”;
· she did not have a relationship with the State Security Agency (SSA) when a picture had been taken of a meeting between her and Fryer (in 2014) – a fact omitted by the journalist; and
· the reference to Fryer as an intelligence agent was false and misleading, as he had resigned from his employment with the SSA in 2011.
She adds that City Press / Ferial Haffajee previously wrote defamatory articles about her, and argues that the latest story dispelled the previous stories of a conspiracy “and all the spurious and false allegations against me”.
The text
The article, written by Ferial Haffajee, was about “trouble” at the SA Revenue Service (SARS) in various shapes and sizes, including race relations and intelligence affairs.
The section about Walter read as follows:
“But what is now becoming clear is that the clear-out (or capture) of Sars was planned years ahead.
“In e-mail at the time, Walter said Fryer had explained to her he ‘represented folks who wished to change the leadership of Sars and the minister of finance’.
“Nobody took it seriously, but three years on, his words, as recounted by Walter, have come true.
“Walter was an intelligence agent who worked for the State Security Agency as well as for intelligence agents working for big tobacco.
“Her affair with Sars intelligence boss Johann van Loggerenberg blew up and in the course of its fracture, she revealed the extent of the infiltration of intelligence services by private interests. These intelligence services clashed with Sars.
“This week, Walter said it wasn’t true and there had been no grand conspiracy to oust the previous Sars leadership.”
The arguments
Lubisi says Walter’s e-mail at the time (dated 20 July 2014) set out a plan which has subsequently proven to be true – “SARS had proven to upset too many apple carts with its investigative work. Intelligence agents, both state and private, had been at work in SARS to successfully destabilize the organisation.”
He says the content of that e-mail is not disputed, and denies that the “small part” City Press has utilized “was used without context or in a distorted context”.
The editor submits the newspaper gave Walter ample time to comment, which was represented fairly in the article. He says Haffajee phoned her and also communicated with her on WhatsApp, “even though her approach was incredibly aggressive”.
He says that if the story got Fryer’s current occupation wrong, City Press can apologise for that mistake.
In conclusion, he argues that Walter should not conflate this article with others that City Press published years ago “to knit a conspiracy about our intentions”.
Walter denies that she has ever sent any e-mail to Haffajee, submitting “that she is being blatantly dishonest in this regard”. She says she did send e-mails to Nicki Gules at City Press in terms of undertakings in 2014, adding that Gules has confirmed in writing that she did not furnish these emails to Haffajee.
She says she had no idea what Haffajee was referring to in her requests for a response late on a Friday evening on e-mails she had not sent her. She adds that she was abroad (with a substantial time difference), and that the saga has accumulated over 8000 emails on her laptop – “I therefore did not have a fair or adequate opportunity to respond or comment. I also submit that my aggression stems from City Press printing the most abhorrent lies about me in August 2014 and Ferial then sending Nicki to tell me that they didn’t like what ‘the boys were doing to me’.”
Walter dismisses the newspaper’s response to her complaint, as:
· there has been no evidence, or no finding, to support the media’s stance that “intelligence agents, both state and private, had been at work in SARS to successfully destabilise the organisation”;
· Fryer had not been with the SSA for years when the meeting between them took place; and
· The conspiracy theory was further undermined if it was correctly reported that she had reported the content of the meeting to the acting SARS Commissioner immediately after the meeting. “So how could I be a part of a conspiracy if I was reporting all events and incidents to the Hawks and SARS as they happened?” she asks.
Analysis
I need to state upfront that I cannot adjudicate articles published some years ago. Section 1.3 of the Complaints Procedures state that a complaint shall be made within 20 working days after the date of publication. This office may be lenient in this regard, but within reason.
Out of context
The following sentence is at the heart of Walter’s complaint: “In an e-mail at the time, Walter said (‘intelligence agent Mr Ferdi’) Fryer had explained to her he ‘represented persons who wished to replace the leadership of Sars and the minister of finance’…”
I asked Walter for clarification as to what exactly she means by saying this sentence had been quoted “out of context”.
She replied that Haffajee chose a portion of an e-mail to suit a particular agenda, namely that she (Walter) had somehow been involved in a plot or conspiracy – while such a “conspiracy”, she says, was refuted by the fact that she had reported the matter that same day to the top management structure of SARS. “The journalist ignores my statements of my suspicions that the threats and meeting took place on behalf of SARS itself,” she says.
Walter adds the fact that Fryer was not with the SSA at the time of their meeting is also relevant – it further refuted the conspiracy theories.
To justify her argument, she sent me the relevant e-mail, dated 20 July 2014, on condition that I keep its contents confidential.
I needed this document in order to establish whether the reportage was indeed out of context (read: quoted selectively from that correspondence, in order to portray part of the truth and to hide the rest) in the sense that the reportage has somehow involved Walter in a plot or a conspiracy.
In other words: The issue is not whether the sentence is correct or not (it is, as it indeed accurately represented what Walter had written in her e-mail), but rather whether the citation of only that sentence could have implicated her in a conspiracy to overturn management at SARS – an implication she refutes, and which City Press denies the story implied.
In order to determine whose argument is more reasonable, I need to scrutinize the:
· content of the e-mail; as well as
· proper context in which the story presented the quote.
Content of the e-mail
Walter wrote in her e-mail that she was “told” by Fryer that he represented interests who would like to see SARS’s top structure replaced. Later, however, Fryer allegedly changed his attitude (to something which I am not at liberty to disclose – and which I commend City Press for not mentioning as this referred to a sensitive matter).
I am not convinced that mentioning Walter’s suspicions concerning Fryer’s reason for calling the meeting (the parties will know which suspicions I am referring to) would have made a substantial difference to readers’ impression of the article.
In short, I do not believe that a reference to any other part of Walter’s e-mail would have complemented the quoted sentence in such a way that it would have carried a different message.
Context in the story
The quoted sentence was preceded by the following paragraph: “As the list of Sars’ actions shows, the destabilization of Sars could have come from many sources, given that the institution had infiltrated and upset syndicates in electronics, customs, tobacco and mining, and even the gang worlds of Cape Town and Durban.”
The reader was therefore left with the question: Right, so where did the “clear-out” of Sars originate?
The statement in question did not provide an answer to this question, but the following sentences suggested one – two sentences later Haffajee mentioned that Walter had been an intelligence agent who worked for SSA (as well as for intelligence agents working for big tobacco); and the caption to the picture referred to Fryer as an intelligence agent.
“Intelligence” was the originator; more specifically, it was SSA – at least, that was the sub-text.
But more was reported – Haffajee also stated Walter had “revealed the extent of the infiltration of intelligence services (which ‘clashed with Sars’) by private interests”.
In is within this context that the sentence in question should be interpreted – it was couched within this reference to the SSA. At most this might have implied that Walter was involved in a conspiracy; at least, I submit, it did imply that she knew about one.
I take into consideration that Haffajee did record her denial to this effect, though.
However, the question remains, notwithstanding Walter’s denial: Was it reasonable to interpret the text in such a way as to believe that she had been implicated in a conspiracy (which is the crux of her complaint)?
In this regard, I submit that knowledge of something does not necessarily imply involvement in it. When I read the text for the first time, I was not convinced the sub-text suggested that Walter had been involved in a conspiracy. This impression remained after re-reading the material.
Conclusion
Given all of these considerations, I do not believe that this particular story either pertinently or subtly portrayed the message that Walter was part of a conspiracy to overturn (certain parts of) management in SARS.
Postscript
I note that Walter has denied not only that she was involved in a conspiracy, but also that such a conspiracy existed. Clearly, she did not believe Fryer (given her version of their meeting – Fryer’s version might differ from hers).
However, what I find baffling is that Walter herself says, in her complaint, that the story in dispute has probably dispelled the previous stories of a conspiracy. These are her words, “If [Haffajee] now correctly states that the email she refers to was in fact sent to the SARS Acting Commissioner at the time, Mr Ivan Pillay, as well as the Khanyane panel of investigation (at the time) and law enforcement agencies, it dispels the previous stories of a conspiracy and all the spurious and false allegations against me.”
(The e-mail in question, which Walter has sent me, indeed indicates that her message was sent to Pillay as well as to other SARS officials.)
If that is the case, it would be doubly difficult for me to find that this story has involved her in a conspiracy – if she, herself, argues to the contrary.
Relationship with SSA
Walter complains that Haffajee omitted to state that she did not have a relationship with SSA when a picture had been taken of a meeting between her and Fryer (in 2014).
I do not think it matters much to the reasonable reader whether Walter was involved before, during or after that meeting.
Fryer
Walter’s complaint is that the reference to Fryer as an intelligence agent was false and misleading, as he had resigned from his employment with the SSA in 2011.
I appreciate Lubisi’s willingness to apologise on this issue – but I am not asking him to do so as Walter does not have the standing to complain on Lubisi’s behalf.
What is relevant, though, is Fryer’s alleged involvement in SSA with regards to an impression that he was still working for that agency.
But again, I doubt that the average reader would have been bothered whether Fryer was involved in SSA before, during or after his meeting with Walter.
General comment
Walter accuses Haffajee of dishonesty. However, this does not form part of the complaint.
Finding
The complaint is dismissed.
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.
Johan Retief
Press Ombud