Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
11 September 2015
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Vincent Phillips, on behalf of Mr Stephen Japhta, and those of Cecilia Hume, on behalf of the People’s Post newspaper.
Complaint
Japhta is complaining about a story in People’s Post of 23 June 2015, headlined Tipple application denied.
He complains that the:
· article was incorrect and misleading, creating the perception in the minds of readers that his application for a liquor licence had been denied, while the process had not been finalized yet; and
· journalist ascribed comments to him that he never made.
The text
The introductory sentence to the story, written by Chevon Booysen, read, “A liquor applicant for a new outlet in Ruimte Road, Manenberg has recently (unanimously) been denied at the Athlone Subcouncil…citing substance abuse as a contributor to crime and violence in the area.”
Japhta, the applicant, reportedly motivated his application by claiming that his proposed establishment, Stevie G Liquor Stores, would be in the community’s interest as it would have an “inviting atmosphere”. He was quoted as saying, “I had the idea to open this store as the local (liquor) store…feels unsafe with seedy characters hanging around. I want to provide a safe alternative to the already existing liquor stores in the area. A lot of these premises are operating without the proper licences.”
The application was reportedly denied after the councillor for ward 46, Junade Hoosain, had consulted with two churches, three schools and the Matrix Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Centre “which [are] in close proximity to this applicant’s premises”.
Responses
Hume says the story reported a decision made by the local council at a public sub-council meeting. “The reporter [compiled] the article from the minutes of this subcouncil meeting. If this is misleading/incorrect it is a matter that should be taken up with the relevant subcouncil.”
She adds that the journalist quoted Japhta’s motivation as stated in his application, “which is a public document”. She concludes that the story did say that the quotes in question came from his application.
Phillips replies the offensive article was published with mala fide intent (“given that the designated liquor officer, Captain Erasmus of Manenberg SAPS and against whom a formal complaint has been referred to the provincial office [had] acted unlawfully and in blatant disregard of the regulations pertaining to comment by interested parties…”).
He also says that this “deliberate perversion” of the truth amounted to an “unprecedented assault” on Japhta’s dignity and privacy.
Phillips adds that Hume’s claim that the reporter sourced the information from Japhta’s motivation (which Hume described as a “public document”) was “at best disingenous and a blatant lie…”
Analysis
The minutes of the sub-council meeting dated 18 June 2015, under the heading SubCouncil Resolution Details, state that it unanimously resolved not to support the application for a liquor licence.
The story made it clear that comments ascribed to Japhta were taken from his licence application. The journalist used inverted commas to ascribe words to him – which she was justified to do, as he used those words in his application.
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 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