Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
2 October 2014
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Anton Smit, on behalf of Ms TC Mametja, and those of Yolande Nel, editor of the Polokwane Observer newspaper.
Complaint
Polokwane Municipal Manager Conny Mametja is complaining about an article that was published in the Polokwane Observer in its 28 August – 3 September 2014 edition, headlined Muni manager’s matric questioned.
She complains that the:
General comment
The newspaper has asked this office not to entertain this complaint, as Mametja had reserved her right to take legal action against the publication. Nel writes: “Annexure A of Part B of the South African Press Code and Complaints Procedures is clear: ‘The Ombudsman shall not accept a complaint…where at any stage of the proceedings legal action is threatened or considered by the Ombudsman to be a possibility’…”
This is an important matter, which I need to clarify.
Nel’s reference is out of date. After in-depth discussions by the Press Council on this matter, it has changed the wording quoted by the editor to read: “Where at any stage of the proceedings it emerges that proceedings before a court are pending on a matter related to the material complained about…the Ombudsman…shall forthwith stop the proceedings and set aside the acceptance of the complaint by the Public Advocate, unless it is shown that the issue complained about is not among those that the court is adjudicating.”
Visit www.presscouncil.org.za (Complaints Procedures, Point 1.7) for the full statement.
One of the reasons for this formulation is that the Press Council has suspended the waiver (for a trial period) – which implies that a complainant may take a matter to court after the processes of this office had run their course.
Therefore, while in this trial period (which ends in October 2015, after which a decision will be taken to either waive the waiver or to the reinstate it), complainants may reserve their rights.
The story
The story, written by RC Myburgh, said: “While doubt has been expressed from several quarters over the existence of Polokwane Municipal Manager Conny Mametja’s matric qualification, she has provided Polokwane Observer with a copy of a Senior Certificate issued in her name yet not reflecting her identity number of date of birth.”
The reporter added that:
The newspaper’s response
Nel says that Mametja is a public figure and that therefore a legitimate interest in her actions exists. Since her appointment as municipal manager, the newspaper has received enquiries from readers and documentation from sources prompting enquiries into her qualifications. “Initially the enquiries were regarded as malicious rumours. Due to further allegations about reference to her matric certificate not being contained in her CV, the publication decided that public interest warrants investigation of the matter.”
The intention never was to question Mametja’s dignity or reputation, the editor asserts.
She adds that the reporter visited Mametja to obtain the facts, and duly published her version of the matter – without expressing any opinion or making any allegation in this regard.
Also, Myburgh tried to verify the facts with the Department of Education (as stated in the story), but the department referred the reporter to the Council for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education and Training (Umalusi).
Nel refers to the following sentences in the story:
Regarding the publication of Mametja’s ID number, the editor states: “We do not believe that the publishing of a public document identifying her ID exposes any more risks than publishing for example her photo on a continuous basis.”
Finally, Nel says that the newspaper published an immediate follow-up to the story (on page 4 of the 4 – 10 September 2014 edition), stating the information issued by the Polokwane Municipality’s Communications and Marketing Manager.
Mametja’s reply to the newspaper’s response
Smit says:
My considerations
Justified to publish prior to verification?
My first question is how justified the newspaper was in publishing the story before it was able to verify the exact situation (either with the Department of Education, or with some other authoritative body).
This office has now said on numerous occasions that the press is not at liberty to publish an allegation just because somebody has made it – there has to be some sort of a foundation to the allegation before it may be published.
So, did the Polokwane Observer have such a foundation?
I do believe so. After the newspaper had received some enquiries, it started to investigate the matter. As part of this investigation, the reporter obtained a matric certificate from Mametja herself. If everything on this document was in order, there would have been no story in the first place – but it was not, as there was no date of birth or any kind of identification number on it.
This is irregular. I have checked with matric certificates obtained in 1969, 1972 and 1999, and all of them reflect either the candidate’s date of birth or his/her ID number.
This does not mean that I believe that the certificate was false because of the absence of these data – all I am saying, is that the absence of identity information justified the newspaper to publish the allegations as allegations, and that it was in the public interest to do so.
But this is not the end of this matter: I have asked the editor telephonically whether the newspaper has tried to establish the exact situation after publishing its initial story and the denials of the municipality in a follow-up article. In other words, did the Polokwane Observer publish a third story, reporting on the exact situation regarding Mametja’s matric certificate? There should be no excuse for failing to establish the truth.
Nel’s answer was a disappointing “no”. Surely, it is unethical (read: against the public interest) for the newspaper to let this issue hang in the air.
If further investigation proves that Mametja does have a legitimate matric certificate, the newspaper would be obliged to publish that fact; if not, it should expose her for presenting it with a fraudulent certificate.
In conclusion, I do believe that the newspaper did enough to establish the facts prior to publication, and that it was justified in publishing the story at the time (even before clearing up the matter with the Department of Education). I also believe, though, that the Polokwane Observer owes the public a thorough investigation, resulting in a story stating all the relevant facts.
Dishonesty; reputation and dignity
Section 4.7 of the Press Code states: “The press shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation. The dignity or reputation of an individual should be overridden only by a legitimate public interest…”
Having decided that the newspaper was justified to publish the allegations because there seemed to be some kind of foundation to them, and because doing so was in the public interest, it follows that I also believe these considerations overrode Mametja’s dignity and reputation concerns in this instance.
However, I need to reiterate my firm belief that a third, clarifying, story is necessary – if it is proven that Mametja does have a valid matric certificate, the publication of such proof would exonerate her more than anything else would.
ID number
Section 4 of the Press Code, headlined Privacy, the Protection of Personal Information, Dignity and Reputation, is applicable in this instance.
I am citing the relevant parts of this section, with my comments below in shaded boxes:
4.1 “The press shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving the private lives and concerns of individuals. The right to privacy may be overridden by a legitimate public interest.”
|
Did the public have a legitimate interest in knowing a piece of private information about Mametja, such as her ID number? The answer is an emphatic “no”. |
4.2 “The press should take reasonable steps to ensure that the personal information under its control is protected from misuse, loss, or unauthorised access.”
|
What reasonable steps could the newspaper possibly have taken to ensure that the personal information it had at its disposal would not be misused, after Mametja’s ID number was published? The answer is an emphatic “none”. |
4.3 “Journalists must take reasonable measures to secure personal information under their control to limit and prevent unlawful access to the processing of such information.”
|
How could the newspaper reasonably have ensured that unlawful access to Mametja’s personal information was either limited or prevented? After publishing her ID number, it could not have done so. |
4.5 “Some personal information, such as addresses or other identifying details, may enable others to intrude on the privacy and safety of individuals who are the subject of news coverage, and their families. To the extent lawful and practicable, the press should disclose only sufficient personal information to identify the persons being reported in the news, so that these risks can be reasonably avoided.”
|
Was it necessary for the newspaper to publish Mametja’s ID number? Was the other information not sufficient to identify her? The answer to the first question is “no”; and it is a “yes” to the second one. |
Given all of the above, it is worrisome that the editor says she does not believe that publishing a public document identifying Mametja’s ID number exposes any more risks than publishing for example her photo on a continuous basis.
Given the fact that Nel quoted from out-of-date Complaints Procedures, I strongly suspect that she was also not aware of the largest part of Section 4 (which came in force on 20 May 2014).
However, ignorance of the latest Press Code cannot be an excuse for breaching it.
Finding
Justified to publish prior to verification?
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Dishonesty; reputation and dignity
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
ID number
The publication of Mametja’s ID number was unnecessary and not in the public interest. The reportage was in breach of Sect. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.5 of the Press Code.
Request
After I have dismissed the first two parts of the complaint, I cannot sanction the Polokwane Observer on these issues. However, I strongly urge the newspaper to do a follow-up story, based on a thorough investigation of the matter.
Sanction
The Polokwane Observer is directed to:
The newspaper is free to report that I have dismissed a part of the complaint.
It should provide me with this text prior to publication.
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