Ruling by the Press Ombud
16 October 2016
This ruling is based on the written submissions of the legal head of treasury, Rebecca Tee, as well as those of Susan Smuts, legal editor of the Sunday Times newspaper.
Tee is complaining about a story in Sunday Times of 28 August 2016, headlined Treasury takes Denel to court.
Complaint
Tee complains that the story falsely stated that she had sent letters to Denel demanding that it dissolves a partnership (with arms firm VR Laser Asia) or face legal action, and she wishes the newspaper to retract that statement without reservation.
The text
The story reported that Treasury had allegedly been planning to take legal action against Denel over its partnership with the Gupta-linked arms firm.
The dispute
When this complaint reached my desk, neither party disputed that Sunday Times should apologise; what was in dispute, was the wording.
I am therefore taking it from there, confining myself to the wording of the text to be published, without re-inventing the wheel.
The latest version from Sunday Times reads as follows:
|
On 28 August 2016, in an article headlined “Treasury takes Denel to court”, we quoted a source saying that “The Treasury’s legal head, Rebecca Tee had already sent letters to Denel demanding that it dissolve the partnership or face legal action. Treasury did not respond to a request for comment. Tee complained to the Press Council that there was no truth in the statement that she had sent the letter. Our source has since said that he is no longer sure whether Ms Tee sent the letter. In the circumstances, we accept Tee’s denial that she sent the letter and apologise to her.” |
The version preferred by Tee goes like this:
|
On 28 August 2016 , under the heading “Treasury takes Denel to court”, we reported that: “[T]reasury’s legal head, Rebecca Tee, had already sent letters to Denel demanding that it dissolve the partnership or face legal action”. The report is untrue. It is hereby retracted in its entirety and we apologize to Ms Tee for attributing something to her that she has not done. |
My considerations
These are my considerations:
1. Both texts start with the date and the article’s headline, as if that is the most important aspect. It is not – the apology itself is. The latter should therefore be upfront.
2. Tee’s text does not include a reference to her complaint to this office, as it should.
3. I am always careful not to soften an apology by adding all sorts of ifs and buts, excuses or reasons for the mistake.
4. In this regard I am not happy with including the newspaper’s lengthy reference to its source, as that may soften the apology.
5. Both texts merely refer to “dissolve the partnership or face legal action” – but the uninformed reader would not understand that part, and therefore also not the apology, if the proper context was not added to identify the partnership in question.
6. A proper reply by Treasury may have made a substantial difference to the reporting. It is therefore unfortunate that it did not respond. An inclusion of this aspect is not meant to soften the apology, but rather to bring some context to the matter.
7. It is not necessary to retract the whole story, as Tee asks – it will suffice to retract the statement in dispute.
Taking all of these considerations into account, my preferred text reads like this:
|
Sunday Times apologises to Treasury’s legal head, Rebecca Tee, for incorrectly stating that she had sent letters to Denel demanding that it dissolves a partnership with arms firm VR Laser Asia or face legal action. We retract that statement without reservation. On 28 August 2016 (under “Treasury ‘taking Denel to court’ to halt Gupta deal”), we quoted a source to this effect. The story reported that Treasury had allegedly been planning to take legal action against Denel over its partnership with the Gupta-linked arms firm. Tee justifiably complained to the Press Council that there was no truth in the statement that she had sent the letter. The Ombud supported our apology and retraction; he added it was unfortunate that Treasury did not respond to our enquiry, as that may have made a substantial difference to our reporting. |
Sunday Times accepts this text, but Tee has a “serious objection” to the phrase stating, “… he added it was unfortunate that Treasury did not respond to our enquiry, as that may have made a substantial difference to our reporting”.
She wants this statement to be deleted, arguing: “Firstly I have no knowledge as to whether Treasury was in fact approached and failed to respond. Secondly, the Treasury is not part of this complaint, I lodged it completely on my own. I do not want to this to cause a new fight where Treasury hits back for being accused of not responding.”
To this, Smuts responds as follows: “We followed the procedures with Treasury that we were supposed to follow. Ms Tee says she doesn't want to drag Treasury into the matter, but last time we approached her directly she objected, so we followed official routes this time. With respect, she and Treasury must choose which approach they wish us to follow, and not chop and change on a whim and without prior warning. Furthermore, the only reason she was mentioned in the story is because of her role within Treasury. We would object to the line being removed.”
This means that, save for the statement mentioned above, the parties have consensus.
Questions were indeed sent to the Treasury spokesperson, Phumza Macanda, both by e-mail and by text message (of which I have proof). She did not respond to those questions.
I also note that the questions sent to Macanda (below) were pertinent to the crux of Tee’s complaint.
The questions were:
1. Has Treasury approved the partnership?
2. According to my information Treasury's legal department has written to Denel that it would take legal action against the arms manufacturer if it continued with the partnership in its current form without Treasury approval. Can you confirm or deny this?
3. Has Treasury served Denel with notice of its intention to take it to court to cancel the partnership? If so, when is the matter likely to be heard?
Even though Tee was not mentioned by name, she was implicated in these questions as she was the legal head of Treasury.
Based on all of the above, I submit that the inclusion of the statement in dispute would not in any way soften or take away from the apology. It is also reasonably true that the story might have read differently, had Treasury provided the newspaper with proper comment, and Treasury is indeed part of this issue.
Therefore, I believe that the inclusion of the statement would be fair and just.
Sanction
Sunday Times is directed to publish the following text:
Sunday Times apologises to Treasury’s legal head, Rebecca Tee, for incorrectly stating that she had sent letters to Denel demanding that it dissolves a partnership with arms firm VR Laser Asia or face legal action. We retract that statement without reservation.
On 28 August 2016 (under “Treasury ‘taking Denel to court’ to halt Gupta deal”), we quoted a source to this effect. The story reported that Treasury had allegedly been planning to take legal action against Denel over its partnership with the Gupta-linked arms firm.
Tee justifiably complained to the Press Council that there was no truth in the statement that she had sent the letter. The Ombud supported our apology and retraction; he added it was unfortunate that Treasury did not respond to our enquiry, as that may have made a substantial difference to our reporting.
If the story appeared on the newspaper’s website, this apology should be published there as well.
The headline should contain the words “apology” or “apologises”, and “Tee”.
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 Ombud