Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
5 December 2015
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Uyanda Mbuli and those of Johan Vos, deputy editor of the Sunday Sun newspaper.
Complaint
Mbuli is complaining about a front-page report in the Sunday Sun of 15 November 2015, headlined Uyanda dumped again! The story continued on page 2 with the headline, ‘Wonga has been warned’.
She is complaining that:
· the article contained fabricated allegations stated as facts (details below);
· the headline was factually incorrect;
· the newspaper’s sources were motivated by jealousy and malicious intent, who believed that the her relationship with Wonga Malusi (reportedly a “tycoon”) was not supposed to last, and that therefore they should have broken up long ago; and
· her personal life was not in the public interest (especially as she has not been in the public eye for the past four years), that it was unfair to put her in a position where she had to defend her relationship with Malusi on a public platform, and that the reportage has damaged her right to privacy and dignity.
The text
The story, written by Kgomotso Moganedi and Bongani Mdakane, quoted several sources as saying Mbuli’s wedding was off as “the socialite has fallen out with Wonga Malusi…and the tycoon took back his supercar”. The newspaper reportedly learnt about the matter from close friends on both sides of the split.
Mbuli reportedly refused to comment, and Malusi said, “People like talking about things that they don’t know of. That’s all I can say.”
The complaint in more detail
Mbuli says the story incorrectly stated that:
· her relationship with Malusi was over (published despite the latter’s denial, which was “edited out of the article”;
· she was a socialite – while the newspaper cannot list even five media events she attended in the past five years. “I’ve taken a conscious decision to retire from anything that puts my name in the spotlight… Not even once since retiring four years ago have I engaged the media about my life. I fail to understand how…they find the need to still tarnish my name and the names of those associated with me, under the pretext of public interest”;
· Malusi was a people pleaser who was often seen in the company of young girls (making him appear immature);
· she did not get along with Malusi’s family (she says she will provide this office with a picture of an Instagram account to prove her point);
· she was using Malusi’s car and he came with a spare key to steal the car back. “I have copied on this email Garry Nel who works at Daytona were the car was bought and was being serviced. He is the same gentleman we requested to transport the car to East London as per our plan (and not spare key was involved in this exercise)”; and
· she was “dumped again” (in the headline) – so, who dumped her the first time, she asks.
She asks when the newspaper will stop reporting lies just to sell its product, while claiming they gave her a chance to allow South Africa to discuss her personal life when she refused to dignify (the lies) with comment? “Where does it stop?”
She adds that both Malusi and she have young children who suffer at the hands of such malicious reports and that these children have to worry about things which do not exist – and defend themselves to their friends. She asks for an apology with the same prominence, and also requests that the newspaper publishes an unedited letter written by her.
Some arguments
Vos says the journalists deny that Malusi said he was still in a relationship with Mbuli. “We (also) have four sources in this matter and three of them are willing to speak to the Ombudsman.”
He offered me some confidential information telephonically, and provided me with the journalist’s notes, which indicate that Mbuli had admitted that it was “over” between her and Malusi.
The deputy editor says the story attributed the moving of the car to East London to its sources, as well as the allegation that Malusi’s family “can’t stand [Mbuli]”.
Vos also argues that the words “dumped again” in the main headline should be seen in context – he says City Press reported that Mbuli’s former husband had applied for a protection order to stop her from bringing Mokhetho Mulaudzi, the man he claimed was her boyfriend, to their Kyalami home.
It was also reported that Mr Mbuli had obtained a fourth protection order against his wife since the couple’s separation, and that it meant that he wanted to get out of the marriage despite her being the plaintiff in the divorce matter.
Vos concludes, “We stand by the article that was published as we were given confidential information to believe the article to be reasonably true and in the public interest.”
Mbuli responds that:
· Malusi told Moganedi that they were still in a relationship;
· the car was transported by Garry Nel of Daytona (owners of McLaren South Africa) upon her request;
· the divorce summons was issued before the articles were written;
· she applied for a protection order against Mr Mbuli, which was confirmed in 2012; and
· her former husband applied for counter protection orders for a number of years since hers was granted – which were never confirmed, save for a temporary order which was subsequently dismissed following witnesses submissions that he had lied. “The fact remains…it was me who [filed] for divorce and served Sisa Mbuli the summons – I dumped him.”
My considerations
Fabricated allegations stated as fact
I interpret Mbuli’s main concern to be the allegation that her relationship with Malusi had come to an end.
I have asked the newspaper about its sources, and Vos has revealed some names to me provided that I keep those confidential. The deputy editor also offered me some additional confidential information. After I have spoken to some of these sources, I am convinced that the newspaper was justified in publishing this allegation as an allegation.
This office is strict on the publication of allegations – not every allegation should be published, as some reasonable grounds need to exist for accepting the claim as essentially true.
This does not mean that I am stating as fact that the relationship between Mbuli and Malusi was indeed over – all I am saying is that the newspaper had enough reasonable grounds to justify the publication of the allegation as an allegation.
In this regard, I note that the only statements in the entire article that may be interpreted as fact (and not allegation), are the introductory sentences which state, “Uyanda Mbuli’s planned big wedding is off. The socialite has fallen out with Wonga Malusi… And the tycoon took back his supercar!”
However, the rest of the story put these statements in perspective, as it is abundantly clear that the information contained in the story is squarely based on sources (quite a few were mentioned). I am therefore satisfied that the newspaper was justified in its reportage on this issue.
All the other issues in Mbuli’s complaint, as outlined above, deal with information garnered from the newspaper’s sources which, as I have already indicated, I have accepted – as long as their claims were portrayed as allegations (which they were) and not stated as fact.
This leaves me with the use of the word “socialite” to describe Mbuli. I have asked Vos about this, wondering if it would not have been better to use the expression “ex-socialite” (in light of Mbuli’s arguments in this regard).
He referred me to some online descriptions of her that all use the word “socialite”; he also noted that “socialite” was defined as someone who was well-known in fashionable society and fond of social activities and entertainment.
The headline
The headline stated as fact that Mbuli had been dumped (again).
I have already argued that I am willing to accept that the newspaper was justified in publishing an allegation to this effect, as long as it was not stated as fact – which is exactly what the headline did.
It does not matter how much the newspaper argues that the headline should be seen in context, and that I should keep the confidential information in mind when adjudicating the headline – it still changed an accusation into a statement of fact.
Judge Phillip Levinsohn has recently (in 2013) said in a Supreme Court case in Swaziland: “Many readers of newspapers simply glance at the bold headings only and then move on. The impression implanted in the mind of the reader by such blaring headlines is likely to be both deep and lasting. Most readers do not read the whole story…”
From this, it is fair to say that headlines should stand on their own and be interpreted as such. (I have asked him personally whether this interpretation was correct, to which he replied in the affirmative.)
I therefore do not believe that the headline was fair to Mbuli and neither that it was a reasonable reflection of the content of the story (as it changed an allegation into “fact”).
Sources motivated by jealousy, malice
I am in no position, neither is it in my mandate, to speculate (let alone adjudicate) on what the motivation of the sources might have been; I also have no reason to believe that the newspaper was either jealous or malicious in its dealings with this story.
Not in the public interest; privacy and dignity
I take into account that stories about her and her former husband’s marriage (as well as various restraining orders) have regularly been in the news; I accept that she (still) is a public figure, and as such the newspaper had the right to publish the story.
Finding
The complaint is dismissed, save for the headline – which is in breach of the following sections of the Press Code:
· 2.1: “The press shall take care to report news…fairly”; and
· 10.1: “Headlines…shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report…in question.”
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of our Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The breach of the Press Code as indicated above is a Tier 2 offence.
Sanction
Sunday Sun is reprimanded for stating as fact in the headline the allegation that Mbuli’s and Malusi’s relationship had come to an end. The newspaper is directed to publish this sanction on page 2.
The text, which should be approved by me, should end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding.”
The headline should reflect the content of the text. A heading such as Matter of Fact, or something similar, is not acceptable.
If the story appeared on the newspaper’s website with the same or a similar headline, the finding should be posted there as well.
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