Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
18 January 2016
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Presidential spokesman Bongani Majola, on behalf of the chief operations officer of the Presidency, Ms Lakela Kaunda, and those of Susan Smuts, legal editor of the Sunday Times newspaper.
Complaint
Kaunda is complaining about an opinion article in the Sunday Times of 20 December 2015, headlined Friends, advisors and a few rogues.
She complains that the following statements in the story, presented as fact, were not true and misleading:
· “All those who have clashed with her have ended up leaving the Presidency, including ANC deputy secretary general Jesse Duarte and former presidential spokesman and newspaper editor Vusi Mona… [Duarte’s] departure from the presidency had more to do with personal differences and a power struggle between herself and Kaunda”; and
· “It is her unassuming and polite attitude that makes her power even more lethal, her detractors say”.
Kaunda also complains that the newspaper did not ask her for comment prior to publication, and states that the story portrayed her as a bad, scheming and manipulative person who abused her power – casting aspersions on her reputation and integrity.
The text
Sibusiso Ngalwa wrote the article after Pres Jacob Zuma had axed the then Minister of Finance Nhlanhla Nene and had replaced him with Mr David van Rooyen. The journalist argued that this raised the question as to whom Zuma had turned to for advice; the reported discussed the people who were said to have the president’s ear, beginning with Kaunda.
Ngalwa stated that Kaunda was considered to be Zuma’s “most trusted aide” – her power was thought to be so great that a minister was convinced his days in Zuma’s cabinet were numbered because she did not greet him when they boarded the same plane; even party officials were said to go to her when they needed someone to convince Zuma on some issue.
The complaint in more detail
Duarte, Mona
Kaunda wants to know who “all those” people were who had clashed with her who ended up “leaving the Presidency”.
She denies that she ever had altercations with Duarte, saying that the newspaper has fabricated this lie as long ago as 2010 (an allegation which both of them have since repeatedly refuted), adding that the late Minister Collins Chabane transferred Mona from the Presidency to the GCIS.
‘Even more lethal’
Kaunda says the use of the word “lethal” is “shocking” and “unbelievable”, arguing that synonyms of that word are “deadly, dangerous, poisonous, toxic, fatal, harmful, disastrous”.
Not asked for comment
Kaunda complains that the newspaper did not ask her for comment prior to publication. “Nobody put this allegation of the so-called detractors to me so that I could set the record straight. They were allowed to tell the world that I am a dangerous person or that I use power entrusted to me in a dangerous manner. It is a serious accusation which has far-reaching implications for my career now and in the future.”
Integrity, reputation
Kaunda complains that the story portrayed her as a bad, scheming and manipulative person who abused her power, casting aspersions on her integrity. “I have spent close to 30 years building my reputation and this article seriously undermines my track record and maligns my good name.”
The newspaper’s offer rejected
Smuts proposes to publish the following text: “In ‘Friends, advisors and a few rogues’ (December 21), we stated that … Duarte and … Mona had left the presidency after clashing with … Kaunda… [who] has complained that we failed to ask her to respond to the allegations ahead of publication. She denies having ever clashed with Duarte, saying: ‘She is my senior and my leader and I respect her. We had a good working relationship and still do’. Kaunda also pointed out that Mona was transferred from the Presidency to GCIS by the late minister Collins Chabane. We regret the errors.”
Kaunda rejects this offer and asks me to make a ruling on this matter.
The legal editor denies the article implied that Kaunda had been a dangerous person or that she had misused her power – the comment about her polite manner having been lethal was attributed to her detractors. “In any event, it merely indicates that they view her as having a polite and unassuming demeanour, which may lead some people to believe they can get the better of her when they can’t. There is no criticism or insult in the statement.”
My considerations
The newspaper is willing to apologise for wrongly (and indeed also unfairly) stating that Duarte and Mona had left the presidency after clashing with Kaunda. That part of the complaint seems to be undisputed.
The use of the words “all those who have clashed with [Kaunda] have ended up leaving the Presidency” (emphasis added) was exaggerated – the two examples used by Ngalwa (Duarte and Mona) were wrong, as admitted by the newspaper itself. This is the point: The onus was on Sunday Times to provide evidence that everybody else who had clashed with Kaunda had left the presidency – which it failed to do, both in the article and in its response to the complaint. In fact, the newspaper did not give one single ample example to justify this part of its reportage. In light of this fact, I accept that this statement was not only exaggerated, but also inaccurate and unfair.
The “lethal”-statement was indeed attributed to Kaunda’s “detractors”, as Smuts argues. If the article stated this as fact, or even attributed it to “sources”, it would have been a different kettle of fish – but the statement was explicitly attributed to her “detractors” (read: enemies, critics). This justified the use of the word in question – I have no reason to believe that Kaunda’s enemies did not use this phrase, and the journalist was within his rights to state it.
I take into account that the text is an opinion piece, and that a journalist is not required to ask a subject’s view when stating his or her opinion on a certain matter (this, of course, is a requirement when it comes to the presentation of hard news). However, the criticism in question is so serious that it would only be fair to now give her the opportunity to respond to the allegation – which I am going to ask (not direct, as this did not amount to a breach of the Press Code) the newspaper to do.
The statements that Duarte and Mona left the Presidency after clashing with Kaunda, as well as the assertion that all those who had clashed with her ended up leaving the Presidency unnecessarily, tarnished her dignity and reputation – portraying her as a bad, scheming and manipulative person who had abused her power.
The relevant section of the Press Code (4.7) makes provision for an important exception to the tarnishing of a person’s reputation, namely if the article amounted to fair comment based on facts that were adequately referred to and were true or substantially true (amongst three other provisions). None of these exceptions were met in this instance.
Finding
Duarte, Mona
By the newspaper’s own admission, it was wrong to state that Duarte and Mona had left the presidency after clashing with Kaunda. This is in breach of Section 2.1 of the Press Code (the text which was in operation at the time of publication) which states, “The press shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly.”
The use of the words “all those who have clashed with [Kaunda] have ended up leaving the Presidency” was in breach of the following sections of the Press Code:
· 2.1; and
· 2.2: “News shall be presented … in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by … distortion [or] exaggeration.”
‘Even more lethal’
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Not asked for comment
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Integrity, reputation
The statements that Duarte and Mona left the Presidency after clashing with Kaunda, as well as the assertion that all those who had clashed with her ended up leaving the Presidency were in breach of Section 4.7 of the Press Code that says, “The press shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation …”
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of our Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The breaches of the Press Code as indicated above are Tier 2 offences.
Sanction
Sunday Times is directed to apologise to Kaunda for:
· incorrectly and unfairly stating that:
o Duarte and Mona had left the presidency after clashing with her; and
o all those who had clashed with her ended up leaving the Presidency; and
· not exercising care and consideration with regards to her dignity and reputation (as a result of the above).
The newspaper is directed to publish this apology on the same page as the offending article, as well as on an appropriate place on its website.
Sunday Times is asked (not directed) to publish a few sentences by Kaunda in addition to the apology (if indeed she wishes to do so) with regards to the issues outlined above.
The text, which should be approved by me, should end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”.
The headline should reflect the content of the text. A heading such as Matter of Fact, or something similar, is not acceptable.
Appeal
Our 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 Ombudsman