Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
5 November 2015
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Adv Danie Nel, on behalf of the Abramjee family, and those of Steven Motale, editor of The Citizen newspaper.
Complaint
The Abramjee family is complaining about the reportage of The Citizen of 8 October 2015. The front-page headline read, Yusuf Abramjee's son caught with Saps radio; the headline on page 3 stated, Radio: Phiyega steps in – Probe: Why son of Primedia boss was ‘illegally’ given device. Another sub-headline read, Police sources suspect their information is not safe. The poster stated, Abramjee son in hot water.
The family complains that the journalist:
· used sources who were frivolous, irrelevant and vexatious, and who had their own agenda;
· published statements that were factually incorrect, misleading, biased, unfair and exaggerated, and often presented opinion as fact (details below); and
· endangered the safety of the family by identifying another son of Abramjee (Zaheer).
They also complain about the headlines and sub-headings.
The family concludes that the reportage has seriously and unnecessarily harmed their integrity, good name and reputation – domestically and internationally – and also endangered their safety.
Some remarks:
· In the complaint, the matter of the credibility of the sources followed the issue of incorrect etc. statements. I have reversed the order for logical and strategic purposes;
· Nel sent me a copy of a poster, but he does not mention it in his complaint. As the newspaper did not have an opportunity to respond to this issue, I cannot entertain it; and
· Abramjee sent me several copies of articles in other newspapers in support of his complaint. However, I cannot use those stories either for or against any party, as they did not form part of a complaint and I have no mandate to establish the veracity of those reports.
The text
The story, written by Vicky Somniso-Abraham, said that National Police Commissioner Riah Phiyega had “personally ordered a police radio be confiscated from the son of Crime Line and Primedia head of news and current affairs Yusuf Abramjee”. The reporter cited several “impeccable sources” from within the police who said the son, a police reservist at the national investigation unit under Divisional Commissioner of Detectives Lt-Gen Vineshkumar Moonoo, had been “illegally provided” with a police radio.
(Crime Line is an initiative between the police and Primedia and headed by Abramjee, who is also the head of news at Primedia].
The article stated that the radio had been confiscated, following Phiyega’s instruction.
Abramjee was quoted as saying he had not been aware that his son was in possession of a police radio. “If it is true, it is for the police to respond to the allegation and take whatever steps they deem necessary,” he reportedly commented.
The reporter also quoted police spokesman Brig Vishnu Naidoo, who said they had become aware that a reservist had a radio in his possession while not performing SAPS duties. He added that Phiyega had issued an instruction that the radio be removed. “An investigation is currently underway to determine why the reservist was given the radio by his commander.”
Somniso-Abraham reported that a nephew of Abramjee had also been appointed as a reservist in the police’s elite investigation unit, “an appointment sources in the police have questioned because of Abramjee’s proximity to the Saps.”
The journalist mentioned that concerns had been raised about the possibility that Abramjee (a journalist, head of news at Primedia and an activist), “may have access to information through his son and nephew which could be used by Primedia’s Radio 702 EWN. Police sources have suspected their information is not safe as Abramjee ‘beats the Saps when it comes to information. If there are high profile cases or wanted suspects, he is the first to know and tweets about it’.”
Abramjee reportedly denied these allegations.
Analysis
The story
Sources
Nel questions the reliability and credibility of the sources and asks for proof to corroborate their claims. He wants to know why the SAPS and/or sources did not produce a single example to substantiate the allegations. He adds that the family’s “good name, reputation and standing have been affected through ‘sources’ who are clearly frivolous, irrelevant and vexatious. ‘Sources’ are often malicious and drive their own agendas… If these sources speak with such confidence, why are they not named as they are official police sources? They are clearing driving an anonymously malicious agenda.”
|
Motale says Brig Naidoo has confirmed, in all material respects, the information provided by The Citizen’s sources. The same goes for the replies to questions the journalist asked Abramjee, who responded on 6 October 2015, as follows:
|
The family replies that, although it is probable that the so-called sources might have been real, they nevertheless remained faceless and nameless – which is why it had “serious reservations” regarding the newspaper’s intentions, motives and credibility.
My considerations
Motale is correct in saying that Naidoo has confirmed, in all material respects, the information presented by the sources. This means that I do not have any reason to question their credibility.
It follows that I also do not have grounds to share the family’s “serious reservations” regarding The Citizen’s agenda and credibility.
False, misleading, unfair, exaggerated statements; opinion presented as fact
The following sentences in the article are relevant:
· “[Phiyega] personally ordered a police radio be confiscated from the son of…Yusuf Abramjee. Impeccable sources within the police said the media mogul’s son…a police reservist at the national investigation unit under…Moonoo, was illegally provided with a police radio”;
· “Concerns have been raised about the possibility that Abramjee…may have access to information through his son and nephew which could be used by Primedia 702 EWN. Police sources have suspected their information is not safe as Abramjee ‘beats the Saps when it comes to information. If there are high-profile cases or wanted suspects, he is the first to know and tweets about it’ ”;
· “A nephew of Abramjee’s is also appointed as a reservist in the police elite investigation unit, and appointment sources in the police have questioned because of Abramjee’s proximity to the Saps”; and
· “Abramjee’s son and nephew did not respond to questions sent to his other son, Zaheer, and [to Nel]. Nel said they would respond, but at the time of going to print Abramjee’s relatives had not yet done so”.
Firstly, Nel says that the words “confiscated” and “illegally provided” were published as fact, without any substantiation, together with the reference to Phiyega, while they were “completely untrue, baseless and wholly unsubstantiated” – Abramjee’s son still had the radio in his possession and it had been allocated to him lawfully. “Police reservists are allocated radios and there is nothing untoward about it.”
He argues that the disputed words were used despite the fact that the story quoted Naidoo as denying “there was anything irregular as they ‘applied just like other reservists’.”
More specifically, Abramjee denies that:
· he has ever received information in tip-offs, or any other information from his son on matters pertaining to criminal investigations, crime scenes or any affairs involving the duties and information held by any of the law enforcement agencies;
· his son has obtained a police radio unlawfully, as it was in his possession for the purpose of the execution of his official police duties;
· he has performed any unlawful act, either as alleged or implied in the publication, or at all;
· his son’s police radio was confiscated;
· his “proximity” to the police has anything to do with the matter; and
· he is a “media mogul”, as he is an employee of Primedia Broadcasting.
Secondly, regarding the statement that “concerns” have been raised that Abramjee might have had access to information through his son and nephew which could be used by Radio 702 Eye-witness News (EWN), Nel asks, “We need to ask: concerns by whom? The article does not specify who has raised these concerns. It is clear that this paragraph constitutes opinion in a news piece which the [Press Code] does not allow.”
The advocate also asks for the evidence on which the statement was based that Abramjee beats the SAPS when it comes to information. “If there are high profile cases or wanted suspects, he is the first to know and tweets about it.” “Where is the proof? Why are the facts and specifics not produced?”
He also argues that the use of the word “could” (be used by Radio 702) was not enough grounds for printing the allegation as fact, discrediting Abramjee in the process.
Nel adds that Naidoo’s comment, “Our interest is to ensure that Primedia does not unfairly receive information to the disadvantage of other media houses”, was again insinuating that Primedia was getting information through Abramjee unlawfully. “This comment is malicious and…without a shred of evidence.”
He adds that Abramjee’s nephew is an adult male and there is nothing in law that prohibits him from being a reservist. To suggest that “sources” have questioned his “proximity” to Abramjee, says Nel, is nothing more than malicious – suggesting wrongdoing without providing any proof of it.
Thirdly, the family also complains the story falsely stated that Abramjee’s son and nephew did not respond to questions sent to them, while a second son (Zaheer) did respond – yet the journalist deliberately chose to ignore the latter’s response (which, Nel argues, pointed to an agenda on the reporter’s part).
Nel adds that Zaheer is not a reservist, which makes him an irrelevant party in this case, who has been unfairly implicated. “However, his good name and reputation has been dragged into the story which suggests illegal activities. This is a yet another clear breach of the Press Code.”
|
In general, Motale denies that the story was in breach of the Press Code. He says that The Citizen relied on credible information, the essence of which was formally confirmed, role-players were afforded the opportunity to comment, and the information at its disposal was presented in an accurate, fair and balanced manner. The editor attests that the newspaper received information from two senior, independent and credible sources to the effect that: · Abramjee’s son and nephew were employed as police reservists in the elite investigations unit; · a decision was taken to confiscate the radio issued to Abramjee’s son; and · the police suspected that Abramjee had been receiving information from his police reservist relatives, which could have been passed on to Crime Line. In particular, Motale says Somniso-Abraham then contacted one of the initial sources, as well as a source of her own – who both confirmed the information. The latter also informed the reporter of an incident when Abramjee and his reservist son posted information about a (then recently committed) crime on social media, which was currently being investigated by the police. On 30 September the reporter sent a detailed list of questions to Naidoo. “As appears from the attached emailed responses, the police…spokesperson confirmed that Mr Abramjee’s son…was in possession of a police radio whilst not performing police duties; that the national police commissioner issued an instruction that the radio be removed from the son’s possession; and that an investigation into the reasons why the son was issued with the radio was underway.” Naidoo responded inter alia as follows:
Motale also disputes Abramjee’s repeated assertion that the radio has not been confiscated. The editor says, “Subsequent to this complaint being lodged, The Citizen made further enquiries. The police spokesperson confirmed in writing that the radio has not been returned to Mr Abramjee’s reservist son. This response obviously implies that it had been taken away.” In his reply, dated October 15, Naidoo said:
The newspaper says the story fairly and accurately reflected Naidoo’s responses. The editor adds that the reference to Abramjee as a “media mogul” constituted fair comment – he says it means “an important or powerful person, especially in the film or media industry”. He concludes that, by virtue of the positions Abramjee holds at Primedia Broadcasting, Crime Line and Crime Stoppers International, “…the word mogul is an accurate description of Mr Abramjee”. Secondly, Motale says “concerns” were indeed raised about the possibility that Abramjee might have had access to information through his son and nephew which could have been used by Primedia. He states that this: · was an opinion expressed by The Citizen’s sources; · view was based on undisputed facts, namely that two of Abramjee’s close relatives served as reservists in an elite police unit, in circumstances where he, by virtue of his position at Primedia and in the Crime Line project, had close ties to the police; and · matter was of public importance. The editor concludes, “As such, the comment is fair. The Citizen published the responses of both the police spokesperson and Mr Abramjee to this allegation. “These concerns were expressed to The Citizen by three independent sources with knowledge of the matter. The basis for their concern is self-evident, namely Abramjee’s positions at Primedia and Crime Line and his close family members’ positions as reservists. It is accordingly a fair concern to have and to express, since it relates to matters of public importance. The Citizen was therefore within its rights to report about this concern.” The same goes for the statement that sources have suspected that their information was “not safe”, the editor argues. “Once again, this was a suspicion expressed by The Citizen’s sources and presented as such to readers. From the story, it is evident that there are three grounds for such a suspicion: One, the positions occupied by Abramjee and his family members. Two, the allegation that “Abramjee beats the Saps when it comes to information”. And three, the comment by the police spokesperson which insinuates…that there have been leaks to Primedia. Mr Abramjee’s response to these allegations was included in the story.” On a further question about “concerns” that Abramjee could be receiving information from his reservist relations, Naidoo responded:
Thirdly, the editor states that Somniso-Abraham also sought comment from Abramjee’s reservist son. “Initially she sent her questions to Mr Abramjee’s other son, Zaheer… When [he] responded that he is not and never has been a reservist, the reporter made further enquiries. She was then informed of the identities of the reservist son and nephew.” Around that time, Motale continues, Nel contacted the reporter. She then re-sent her questions to Zaheer with the request that he forward them to Abramjee’s reservist son and the nephew for comment (dated October 6). “The next day…the reporter followed up with Adv Nel…[who] advised…that the reservist son is aware of the media query and that he (Adv Nel) had advised him to respond. Notwithstanding, no response was received from them. This was mentioned in the story.”
Motale states that the complaint about the failure to publish Zaheer’s response has no merit. “The story did not concern him and there was no need to publish his comment.” |
The family reiterates that Abramjee’s son is still in legal possession of his police radio and happy to present it to the Ombudsman if so required. They also deny that there is an investigation against Abramjee’s son. “As it stands now, there is further not a shred of supporting evidence that suggests or implies that [the Abramjees] were directly or indirectly guilty of committing any offence(s) or misconduct under the law or otherwise, either as alleged or at all.”
Nel replies further that it is incorrect to state, as Motale does, that Abramjee’s son and nephew were employed as police reservists in the so-called elite investigations unit. “We reiterate that they are volunteers and do not receive any form of remuneration whatsoever for these services. It is factually incorrect to allege that they are ‘employed’ as alleged by…Naidoo in his reply dated 30 September 2015 to the Citizen… It is common knowledge that police reservists who serve in the so-called elite investigations are hand-picked on the basis of skill, character, competence and the ability to combat priority crimes. It is submitted that such inaccurate publication is counterproductive and not in compliance with the fundamental principles and vision as encompassed under the press code.”
The advocate also asks, “If the police management suspected that Mr Abramjee ‘had been receiving information from the police reservist relatives, which could have been passed on to Crime Line’, why then are details not shared and/or disclosed? Mr Abramjee has categorically denied receiving any information from his relatives. Abramjee (Jnrs) have also categorically denied passing on any information, as alleged or otherwise. Neither the police spokesman nor the Citizen has given a single example or details of such information having been passed on. It is trite that the duty rests on the Citizen to make out a case and persuade the council that prima facie supporting evidence exists on a basis upon which it substantiated these frivolous and vexatious allegations. Regrettably, the Citizen had failed to do so.”
He concludes:
· It is apparent that Naidoo has provided the newspaper with inaccurate, misleading and misplaced information – the police radio was issued to Abramjee (junior) lawfully; and
· The Citizen did not fairly and accurately reflect Naidoo's responses, but quoted them selectively and left out important information to fit its own fabrication.
My considerations
The questions are whether the newspaper was justified in reporting that:
1. Radio confiscated:
An impeccable police source phoned me, stating that the police radio had been confiscated and had not been in Abramjee’s son’s possession at that time. It is possible, this source said, that the son had a similar security company’s radio in his possession.
From this, I have reasonable grounds to conclude that the newspaper was justified in its reportage on this issue.
2. Radio illegally provided:
The story reported that impeccable sources within the police said Abramjee’s son had been illegally provided with a police radio.
I have already decided that the newspaper was justified in using the information given to the journalist by the sources.
Naidoo has backed up this information, saying that an investigation was under way to determine why the reservist was given a radio by his commander. Surely, the existence of such an investigation indicates that something untoward might have happened.
3. Media mogul:
Synonyms for “mogul” are tycoon, entrepreneur, magnate and industrialist, but it also includes concepts such as kingpin, power and big shot. I therefore need to give the newspaper the benefit of the doubt on this issue.
4. Concerns about the passing of information:
The story said concerns had been raised about the possibility that Abramjee might have access to information through his son and nephew which could be used by Primedia 702 EWN.
Even though the family does not share this concern, I have to accept that such concerns were raised – and therefore that the newspaper was justified in reporting them. Please note that the story did not state it as fact that Abramjee had access to information through his son and nephew, but that sources alleged that it might have happened. Again, I cannot fault the reportage on this point.
The family asks for “proof”. Yet, the passing of information was not stated as fact, but as an allegation.
5. Information not safe:
Somniso-Abraham reported that police sources had suspected their information was not safe as Abramjee “beats the Saps when it comes to information. If there are high-profile cases or wanted suspects, he is the first to know and tweets about it”.
The same argument as above applies here.
6. Proximity to the police; ‘employed’:
The journalist wrote that a nephew of Abramjee had also been appointed as a reservist in the police elite investigation unit, an appointment sources in the police had questioned because of Abramjee’s proximity to the Saps.
Some arguments emerged in the correspondence about the “employment” of Abramjee’s son and nephew. These arguments are irrelevant, as the story never used that word – instead, it said that the two were “appointed”, and there is nothing wrong with that.
The same argument as above (in points 4 and 5) applies here with regards to the statement of Abramjee’s proximity to the SAPS.
7. No response by Abramjee’s son, nephew:
The story said that Abramjee’s son and nephew did not respond to questions sent to his other son, Zaheer (with the request to forward them to the other two) – which is true.
Zaheer did respond, though, inter alia as follows:
“[I] am neither a fulltime nor reservist member of the South African Police Service nor have I ever been a fulltime or reservist member ever. It is therefore clear to me that your story and questions in regard to me are therefore false, contrived, defamatory and accordingly spurious and vexatious and need to be dismissed with the contempt it deserves. Accordingly your question in regard to the police radio must also me dismissed, since I have never been a member of the police force and I never had any access to any police radios.”
I do not blame the newspaper for not reporting his response, as it was not essential to the story.
Headlines
Front page
The front-page headline read, Yusuf Abramjee’s son caught with Saps radio.
The family complains that the word “caught” was factually incorrect, malicious, misleading and defamatory as it falsely suggested that Abramjee’s son was either cornered, nabbed and/or arrested – while, in fact, his radio has never been confiscated.
|
Motale argues that the front-page headline was a fair reflection of the contents of the story as it was based on comment received from the police spokesperson. “In these circumstances it is fair to say that the person was ‘caught with’ the item. In the context of the story as a whole these words do not mean, as [Abramjee] contends, that the person was arrested.” He adds that at the time of publication, Naidoo confirmed that the possession of the radio was regarded as unlawful and that an instruction had been issued to remove it from the son’s possession. “Even if it is true that the police have still not confiscated the radio, it cannot make The Citizen’s reportage at the time wrong.” |
My considerations
Given my findings above I agree with Motale that the headline merely reflected the gist of the story, as required by the Press Code.
Sub-headlines
The sub-headlines stated, Probe: Why son of Primedia boss was ‘illegally’ given device; and, Police sources suspect their information is not safe.
The family complains about the use of the word “illegally”. Nel argues, “It needs to be asked, without revealing the sources, how reliable is the allegation which is stated as a fact. Also, the rules of journalism require multiple or various sources. What proof exists to corroborate this claim?”
|
Motale says the first sub-heading was squarely based on Naidoo’s response. Also, “[the] word ‘Probe’…followed by the placement of inverted commas on the word ‘illegally’, clearly [indicated] this to be an allegation, not a fact.” He adds that the second sub-headline was also based on Naidoo’s response, as well as on information obtained from all three of newspaper’s confidential sources. Furthermore, the word “suspect” showed this to be a statement of opinion, not of fact as claimed by Abramjee. |
Nel says the editor’s response implies that Abramjee was involved in unlawful or gross misconduct – “which are vehemently denied”.
He also denies the content of the second sub-heading, save to point out that to simply “suspect” does not authorise a licence to defame innocent individuals.
My considerations
Given all my arguments above, and taking into account that the word “illegally” was used in inverted commas, I (again) do not have any grounds to find against The Citizen on this issue.
Regarding the second sub-heading, I have already decided that the newspaper was justified in using the information given to the journalist by her sources – which was merely reflected in the sub-heading.
Integrity, reputation; safety
The family concludes that the reportage has seriously and unnecessarily harmed their integrity, good name and reputation – domestically and internationally – and endangered their safety.
Nel also notes that Naidoo pleaded with the paper not to publish the names of Abramjee’s son and nephew, stating they have been used in covert operations. “The Citizen, by doing so, have clearly ignored the personal safety of the two reservists and placed their safety at risk. By a simple process of elimination they have now been identified and are at risk.”
|
Motale says the complaint about identifying the reservist son is not a matter on which the Press Council can rule. “There is no prohibition in the Press Code in this regard. Moreover, there is no prohibition in law in this regard. Yet, the newspaper chose not to name the son or nephew.” He admits that by naming Zaheer, it would be possible for those personally acquainted with the Abramjee family to identify the reservist son. “The newspaper decided to name Zaheer in order to make it clear that they were not implicating Zaheer, who previously denied being a police reservist.” |
Nel replies that, despite a plea from the police not to mention the names of the son and nephew because of their involvement in “covert operations”, the Citizen opted to nevertheless publish the names of Abramjee and his other son – thereby placing the lives and safety of the Abramjee family at risk.
My considerations
Firstly, it is true that the Abramjee family has been caused harm by the reportage. However, given my findings above, I do not have enough grounds to state that it was done unnecessarily.
Secondly, I find the complaint that Zaheer’s name might have led to the identification of Abramjee’s son and nephew quite strange – the identification might also have been made from Yusuf’s name (which was central to the story, justifying the mentioning of his name).
Again, I do not have enough grounds to find for the family on this issue.
Finding
The complaint is dismissed.
But that is not all…
Except for the statement of fact that Phiyega has issued an order to have the radio confiscated, the rest of the story consisted of comment – and allegations. While I do believe that the newspaper was justified in publishing those assertions, they really remained just that – which, by its very nature, may or may not turn out to be false.
I therefore submit that it is incumbent on The Citizen to accurately report the outcome of the investigation – and especially, where an allegation is found to be false, if at all, to report that fact.
Because I have dismissed the complaint I cannot sanction The Citizen. I therefore have to rely on its goodwill and sense of justice and fairness in this regard.
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