Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
3 March 2014
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Logan Maistry, spokesman of the Ministry of Correctional Services, and Greg Arde, for the Sunday Independent, Sunday Tribune and Isolezwe newspapers.
Complaint
The Ministry of Correctional Services complains about a story that appeared in Sunday Independent on 26 January 2014, headlined Zuma’s MaNtuli in extortion drama – Man who claims to be long-time friend of the president’s wife cites death of her bodyguard. The same article was published in the Sunday Tribune (Zuma’s wife in extortion drama – MaNtuli’s mystery ‘friend’ arrested after threatening to reveal her secrets; and MaNtuli no stranger to questionable-conduct allegations), as well as in Isolezwe (Usabise ngokuveza amahlazo kaMaNtuli).
The Ministry complains that the:
Maistry argues that the link to Ndebele in the stories was intended to create mischief and cast aspersions on his integrity and reputation, and that they had the potential to cause him some serious and unnecessary harm. He concludes that the newspapers did not exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation (as required by Section 4.2 of the Press Code).
The text in dispute
The story, written by Agiza Hlongwane and Nathi Oliphant, said that Ongolo (29, from Tanzania, and Ntuli-Zuma’s bodyguard) was arrested on charges of extortion after having threatened to expose “secrets” about the first lady. Amongst these “secrets” is the allegation that she had a “close friendship” with her former bodyguard Phinda Thomo who reportedly committed suicide by shooting himself in the bathtub of his rented Soweto house in 2009. Ongolo claimed that this was not suicide, but in fact murder. It was also rumoured that MaNtuli became pregnant during this relationship with Thomo.
Analysis
Link between Ndebele and MaNtuli, Ongolo
The main disputed part of the story read: “[Ongolo] claimed he was introduced to [MaNtuli] by Correctional Services minister and former KwaZulu-Natal premier S’bu Ndebele.”
The Ministry complains that the newspapers still published this sensational claim, despite the latter’s categorical denial prior to publication. Maistry also says that this “casual link” did not make any sense, except that it was intended to create mischief and cast aspersions on Ndebele’s integrity and reputation (which had the potential to cause him some serious and unnecessary harm). He concludes that the newspapers did not exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation, as required by the Press Code.
Arde responds:
In Maistry’s reply to Arde’s response, he says that the issue before the court is not about the alleged introduction (which is the gist of the complaint with this office), but rather about allegations against MaNtuli and Ongolo. The “casual link” between these allegations and the alleged introduction of the latter to the first lady by Ndebele only became a matter of public record after the publication of the stories in question. (The “link” was therefore not a matter of public record at the time of publication.)
He also argues that Independent Newspapers cannot be the sole decider of what is in the public interest. “Certainly, it cannot publish any claim or allegations, no matter how tangential or baseless, simply on the spurious basis that, since it is made against a public figure, then it is in the public interest to publish without verification and balancing the urge to publish and the potential damage to the dignity of a probably innocent public figure.”
These are my considerations:
I therefore do not believe that the stories contravened the Press Code. This, of course, does not mean that I have ruled that Ongolo’s claims were true.
Mlaba
The story read: “[Ongolo] said he met Ndebele and his wife Zama through…Mlaba. He said he met Mlaba after a protest by immigrants in Durban where he acted as an interpreter. Contacted yesterday Mlaba said: ‘I do not know that man and I have never personally required the services of an interpreter.”
At the end of the story, it stated: “Mlaba could not be reached for comment.”
Maistry writes that these statements were inaccurate and contradictory in that they first quoted Mlaba, but then stated that he could not be reached for comment.
Arde calls this part of the complaint trivial, immaterial and vexatious. However, he adds that this was an error committed in the editing process – the last sentence should have been edited out as soon as the newspaper was able to contact Mlaba.
Although this was an error, I quite understand how it could have happened and moreover submit that this is not so serious that it can constitute a breach of the Press Code. Indeed, nobody has been harmed by this mistake.
General remark
In its complaint, the Ministry mentions a statement by KZN provincial police spokesman Jay Naicker to the effect that Ongolo’s claims against MaNtuli would not be investigated as there was no sworn statement.
I believe this issue is immaterial to the complaint at hand, and if there are such implications, they have already been dealt with in this analysis.
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