Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
9 October 2014
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Mzukisi Madlavu and those of Bongani Siqoko, editor of the Daily Dispatch newspaper.
Complaint
Madlavu is complaining about a story in the Daily Dispatch of 3 September 2014, headlined Names behind Makana fiasco – Forensic inquiry results never tabled.
He complains that the story incorrectly reported that:
· his name was “Emmanuel” Madlavu, and that he had been appointed as Director of Infrastructure by the Makana Local Municipality;
· an investigation into the Makana Local Council by the State Security Agency (SSA) revealed that he had three criminal cases against his name, as well as one of drunken driving; and
· he had been dismissed (by the then minister Lulu Xingwana) for corruption.
The text
The story, written by Zine George and David Macgregor, said that senior ANC leaders, councilors and officials with links to ANC mayor Zamuxolo Peter had been named in a damning report (the Kabuso Forensic Investigation Report) on the “chaotic state” of Makana municipality. Peter’s former landlord “Emmanuel Madlavu” was amongst those who were reportedly implicated.
The journalists stated that Madlavu, who had been appointed director of infrastructure despite a report to council by the SSA revealing that he had three criminal cases against his name as well as a drunken driving case, was being held liable for the process followed when some posts had been filled.
The complaint in more detail
Incorrect name, designation
The story said Madlavu’s first name was Emmanuel, and that he had been appointed as Director of Infrastructure by the Makana Local Municipality.
Madlavu says the municipality does not have an employee called “Emanuel” (sic) Madlavu, and there is no Directorate of Infrastructure in its organogram. “The Directorate is called Engineering and Infrastructure. Mzukisi Madlavu does not have a colonial name, referred to as Emanuel. Mzukisi Madlavu is the Director of Corporate and Shared Services.”
Report revealing four cases against Madlavu
The article stated that the Kabuso report revealed that Madlavu had three criminal cases against his name, as well as one of drunken driving.
Madlavu calls this “backslide (scurrilous) reporting by grossly uninformed journalists”.
He says the SSA report referred to two cases of common assault and a case of sabotage, and explains further:
· Both the record of the CCMA and the SSA report refer to a case of common assault at Hlobane in 1976. In case number C.R. 43528 (the Hlobane case, in KwaZulu-Natal) the person assaulted was an apartheid spy. The assault of an apartheid spy also appears in the matter between himself and the Department of Arts and Culture. “In this case argument is led to the effect that the apartheid system was a crime against humanity. Apartheid spies were obstacles to the attainment of freedom and democracy. An assault of an apartheid spy could not be conceived as a crime. This argument was presented to explain why this could not be conceived as a criminal case.”
· The Hlobane case resulted in a sentence of a R10 fine or 20 days imprisonment. An admission of guilt and payment of a small fine also occurred in relation to the second common assault, which was a consequence of his response to incidences of racism.
· The third “criminal case” refers to the case of sabotage, case number cc18/78 under Internal Security Act Number 74, section 54(3) of 1974. This well-known case also appears in the South African Law Reports, October 1978 and is argued extensively under the heading State versus Madlavu and Others. “As a consequence of the case of sabotage, I was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment on Robben Island. On the 27th April 1991, I was released from the Robben Island prison in terms of Political Indemnity Laws under the Groote Schuur Minute.”
· The matter of drunken driving refers to a case in 2002 that was struck off the roll on 24 March 2011 by magistrate Jebese. “It is mischievous for the media to resuscitate a case that does not exist.”
Dismissed for corruption
The story also said that Madlavu had been dismissed (by the then minister Lulu Xingwana) for corruption.
Madlavu denies that he was dismissed in 2010 for misconduct and corruption and calls it a “deliberate lie” as there is no such record. “I am not corrupt and nobody’s cat’s paw.”
He adds that the report is classified as “strictly confidential”, that it is a draft document, and that it has not been tabled for discussion by the municipality. “This…restricts my public response on the matter.”
The newspaper’s response
Daily Dispatch admits that the story incorrectly referred to “Emmanuel” Madlavu – the reporter took responsibility for and apologised for this mistake (an apology he accepted). A follow-up story was published the very next day, “so we consider the Madlavu name issue settled”.
My considerations
Incorrect name, designation
Madlavu’s first name was indeed corrected in the follow-up story, and his designation was also changed from “directorate of infrastructure” to “corporate services director” (he says his full designation is “Director of Corporate and Shared Service”).
While I am grateful that these mistakes have been adequately corrected, I also need to point out that it would have been in the spirit of the Press Code to acknowledge that errors were made (which the newspaper did not do).
However, Section 2.6 of the Code states: “A publication shall make amends for publishing information…that is found to be inaccurate by printing, promptly and with appropriate prominence, a retraction, correction or explanation.”
As the mistakes were corrected, and promptly at that, it would not be fair for me to sanction the Daily Dispatch on this issue.
Report revealing four cases against Madlavu
Madlavu’s efforts to mitigate the court cases against him are understandable. However, the story did not state that these cases were serious – it merely reported the fact that there had been such cases (which is not in dispute).
I also note that the story used the past tense in this regard, which means that the newspaper was justified in including the case of drunken driving (there was such a case, even if it was dropped).
Dismissed for corruption
An internet search into the records of the Department of Arts and Culture revealed that Xingwana had indeed dismissed Madlavu, together with several others, for “misconduct and/or serious misconduct” in 2010. The heading to this (official) document read, Progress at rooting out corruption at the Department of Arts and Culture. Xingwana was quoted as follows in this document: “Corruption is a cancer that destroys the very fabric of our society and severely hampers service delivery. It is a victory for this government and South Africans in general that we have been able to take decisive steps to root out corruption.”
The facts that the manuscript might have been classified as “strictly confidential”, that it might have been a draft document, and that it had not been tabled for discussion by the municipality are all irrelevant – the newspaper was clearly justified in its reportage on this specific matter (based on the above-mentioned information).
Finding
The complaint is dismissed.
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 Adjudication Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za.
Johan Retief
Press Ombudsman