Dear Sir
You are complaining about a report in City Press of 29 March 2015, headlined Limpopo official racks up R100k porn bill.
You complain that the following allegations relating to you racking up a pornographic bill were inaccurate, malicious and defamatory:
· “[M]asoga racked up a whopping R125 000 cellphone bill in one month – a huge chunk of which was allegedly the cost of watching porn while on an official overseas trip”;
· “Masoga ran up the R125 000 on his Vodacom cellphone in August last year”;
· “He is alleged to have run up the huge tab while watching porn on his official cellphone while paying data roaming charges”;
· “One of the sources close to the supply chain unit of the Legislature said he had seen the bill on a computer screen. Some lines were marked ‘X-rated’”;
· “The bill came to light in January when the supply chain manager at the Legislature, Maite Toona, raised questions. She has since been suspended. Critics believe it was because she refused to approve payment…The Legislature is believed to have paid the bill after Toona was suspended”; and
· “At the time, he was part of a delegation from the Legislature that undertook an ‘economic trip’ to the US, according to three sources in the Legislature, including a senior official and an ANC member of the provincial legislature.”
You contend that:
· the onus is on the newspaper to support these allegations with facts;
· Toona was suspended on a different matter;
· one of the sources was a politician (which you claim supports your argument that the allegations bordered on a political smear campaign to rubbish his name); and
· the journalist published the story despite his denials.
However, it is also reported that the Public Protector is investigating these claims – a fact that you do not dispute.
Upon consideration, it seems that by far the largest part of your complaint is about accuracy – which the PP is already investigating. It would be highly inappropriate for this office to conduct a parallel investigation.
The only journalistic issue that you raise, apart from the issues that the PP is looking at, is that the newspaper has published the story despite your denials.
This is a weak argument. The fact that you have denied the allegations, does not by default mean that the newspaper cannot or should not decide to publish them – it may be in the public interest to do so. The story also reported your denial of the allegations.
In light of the above I am not in a position to adjudicate your complaint, except for the issue I have mentioned above – which I am dismissing.
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.
Regards
Johan Retief