Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
November 30, 2013
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Savita Mbuli and Mr Andrew Boerner, on behalf of the Sunday Sun newspaper.
Complaint
Ms Savita Mbuli complains about a story, headlined Tragedy haunts Vuyo’s widow, published in Sunday Sun on 3 November 2013.
She complains that the:
Analysis
The story, written by Bongani Mdakane, said that the widow of deceased TV personality Vuyo Mbuli “seems to be living under a dark cloud”. Not soon after her husband’s death, she reportedly threw a big party – after which one of her guests died in a car crash. This guest, who was unnamed, was the husband of a colleague of Mr Mbuli at the SABC.
Published despite information from the attorney
Mbuli refers this office to a letter by the attorney of the deceased’s family (Masewawatla Attorneys).
In that letter, dated 1 November 2013 and directed to the newspaper, Masewawatla stated that he represented the wife of the man who died in the car crash, and asked that the Sunday Sun affords his client a right of reply (as it did with Ms Mbuli).
The newspaper says that this letter made no link between Ms Mbuli and that attorney, and that Masewawatla made no request on behalf of her – and argues that that this letter therefore has no relevance to the complaint.
I agree with this argument, as there is no evidence that Masewawatla represented Ms Mbuli and was therefore justified or designated to speak on her behalf – which is why I need to ignore the letter in question as far as this complaint is concerned.
Incorrect statements
The statements in dispute are that:
On the first few statements in dispute, Sunday Sun says that it had relied on its sources for the information, and that Mbuli had a chance to refute the allegations, which she chose not to do.
For the rest, the newspaper argues that these allegations were in the public domain and that they had been widely reported. (It provides this office with some of these stories.)
In her response to Sunday Sun’s reply to her complaint, Mbuli denies that:
She also argues that the statement that:
It is clear to me that most of the statements mentioned above were indeed attributed to sources; those that were not duly attributed, but were stated as fact, were in fact reported as a result of the evidence by these sources.
I also take into account that Mbuli chose not to respond to the quite detailed questions that the journalist sent her two days prior to publication. It is difficult to understand why she complains after publication, when she in the first place refused to present her side of the story even before it was published.
Finding
The complaint is dismissed as it is reasonable to accept that the story was essentially true and justified.
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