Statement by the Premier of the province of KwaZulu-Natal, Dr Zweli Mkhize during the press briefing, Marine Building, Durban

17 Aug 2010

On 21 February 2010 the Sunday Tribune published an article titled "Premier's family lands juicy contracts". This article did not only contain baseless and inaccurate allegations, but it was also a direct attack on me as the premier of KwaZulu-Natal and also defamed my family, namely my wife Dr May Mashego and daughter, Nokulinda Mkhize.

After the publication of this mischievous article, I immediately attempted to remedy this situation by calling a press conference where I gave all the facts and refuted certain allegations that had been made by the Sunday Tribune. At that stage, I even went further to request them to produce evidence of all the allegations they had made. However no such evidence was forthcoming.

On 4 March 2010, I lodged a complaint with the Office of the Press Ombudsman, regarding this article and subsequent articles that were published by the Sunday Tribune, which in my view formed part of the attack intended against myself and my family by this newspaper.

Full submissions were made to the ombudsman (marked "A" in the pack). The Sunday Tribune did not respond within the period stipulated by the press code, instead they advised the Press Ombudsman Office that they were not aware of such a complaint. This obviously caused an unnecessary delay and my family and I continued to suffer prejudice.

The Tribune's defence was finally submitted (marked "B" in the pack). I must at this stage point out that the Sunday Tribune's response showed arrogance, no remorse and disrespect for me, as the premier and my family, as private individuals who have the right to have their dignity respected and protected.

This newspaper went further to make insinuations which were insulting and degrading to me as a person and my family. Further submissions were made to the Press Ombudsman in response to the Sunday Tribune's defence (marked "C" in the pack) and on 18 June 2010, the Press Ombudsman's office issued its ruling (marked "D" in the pack).

The ombudsman found that the Sunday Tribune was indeed in breach of the press code and directed them to publish an apology. In summary, the following issues were raised by the Press Ombudsman. The article stated "Inity Consultants is also listed on national government's suppliers' database, but it was not clear yesterday whether it had been awarded any government work".

The Sunday Tribune did not investigate the allegations before publishing. It also omitted the responses from Nokulinda that Inity Consultants was dormant and had not secured any tenders from government.

A further statement was made that "there are unconfirmed reports that companies involving Nokulinda are raking in millions in provincial government tenders, including catering, transport for the media attending government events and communication work".

These allegations were never put to the premier or Nokulinda before publishing the article. The Press Ombudsman concurred that the Sunday Tribune never had any evidence to corroborate this statement.

A. (i) The code states: "Only what may reasonably be true, having regard to the sources of the news, may be presented as fact and such fact shall be published fairly with due regard to context and importance. Where a report is not based on facts or is founded on opinions, allegations, rumour or supposition, it shall be presented in such a manner as to indicate this clearly.

(ii) "Using the same standard we used earlier, the unconfirmed reports had to be investigated before publication. Reporting the rumours and then stating that they are 'unconfirmed' is not enough to exonerate the newspaper.

B. "In response the newspaper says 'the fact that the premier's family denies it doesn't mean it is not necessarily true'. It says it would be failing in its duty if it did not report information made available to it that is in the public interest.

"If journalists were let loose to report all the information available to them that they believed to be 'in the public interest' without any further thought, the craft would be discredited by the falsehoods we would be churning out.

C. "There is no evidence that there was any attempt by Olifant to corroborate his statement. As a basic, it was unfair to Mkhize and his family not to publish Ngubane's denial that Bookize had not procured work in KwaZulu-Natal.
D. "The Tribune should have examined the tender regulations to see if the Mkhize family fell afoul of them and then opened up a debate on the regulations.

"We also reject the newspaper's argument that 'Premier Mkhize has chosen to ignore the focus of the first article but instead latched on to two claims we said clearly in the article we could not confirm".

E. The newspaper did not investigate the allegations before publishing and also omitted the responses of Nokulinda and her lawyer that Inity was dormant. This is in breach of section 1.2 of the press code: "News shall be presented in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts, by material omissions".

In the same article, it was reported that "according to information made available to the Sunday Tribune, Bookize (a company that Dr Mashego and Nokulinda are shareholders of) teamed up with another company to supply containers for sanitation and sewerage treatment at Edendale hospital, also in Pietermaritzburg, but this could not immediately be confirmed".

The Press Ombudsman found that that these were merely rumours and no steps were taken by the Sunday Tribune to try and confirm this information.

F. "It is true that Bookize is raking in millions from a national government contract, at least the R3,3 million, but the newspaper has not shown that companies involving Nokulinda are raking in millions in provincial government tenders. Saying that these are unconfirmed reports does not exonerate the newspaper from doing its own investigations into the allegations.

G. "It is in breach of section 1.1 of the code: "The press shall be obliged to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly.

H. "The Tribune should have attempted to corroborate this information and should also have published Ngubane's denial that Bookize had not procured any work in KwaZulu-Natal. This omission is therefore in breach of section 1.2. It also breaches Section. 1.4: "Where there is reason to doubt the accuracy of a report and it is practicable to verify the accuracy thereof, it shall be verified. Where it has not been practicable to verify the accuracy of a report, this shall be mentioned in such report".

With regards to an article published on 28 February 2010 titled "Now whistle blower finds himself targeted".

The article concerned the disposal of toxic medical waste in Welkom and mentioned the efforts of a whistleblower in exposing the illegal activity. The article claimed that it had been alleged that the Welkom whistleblower "has benefited from government contracts to the tune of R250 million a year, and that Premier Zweli Mkhize's wife is linked to his business, an allegation which has been denied in the strongest terms by the premier and the whistleblower himself".

The ombudsman found that the Sunday Tribune did not have any evidence in its possession to prove this allegation except for an anonymous e-mail that had been received by the newspaper.

It did not investigate this allegation any further, except to put it to Office of the Premier and the whistle blower himself. The ombudsman highlighted once again that the Sunday Tribune should not have raised such unfounded allegations to the Office of the Premier, even to deny them, without any attempt of corroboration.

i. "The attachment is an anonymous letter to the newspaper asking it to investigate the link between the premier's wife and a waste disposal company. The letter also refers the newspaper to another possible source.

ii."There is no evidence that the newspaper investigated the allegation, except to put them to the Office of the Premier and the whistleblower himself.

J."It was not fair to raise the allegations, even if to deny them, without any attempt at corroboration.

"Here the newspaper is in breach of section 1.4 of the code: Where there is reason to doubt the accuracy of a report and it is practicable to verify the accuracy thereof, it shall be verified. Where it has not been practicable to verify the accuracy of a report, this shall be mentioned in such report".

After this ruling, the Tribune was directed to publish an apology and a summary of the ombudsman's ruling.

K. "Sunday Tribune is therefore directed to publish a summary of this ruling and to apologise to Dr Mkhize and his family for the breaches as enumerated above".

An apology was published on 11 July 2010. I wish to highlight at this stage that the Sunday Tribune initially sent through the apology they intended to publish, which looked more like an opinion piece and showed clear insistence on their part that they still believe that they were correct in publishing that defamatory article, but were merely apologising because they had been instructed to do so.

This, in view, was yet another confirmation that these articles were after all intended to tarnish my reputation, create distrust and loss of confidence in the Premier's Office by the public at large. (I attach the initial draft for reference, marked "E")

This was pointed out to the Press Ombudsman and a revised apology was drafted and finally published.

Despite the fact the newspaper used the apology to justify its discredited case, I was prepared to accept an apology in good faith and lay the matter to rest, especially because of its unpalatable nature. All I asked for was the publication of an apology and retraction in the medium that carried the defamatory article.

In my initial complaint to the Press Ombudsman, I highlighted that the defamatory article of 21 February 2010 was also posted on the internet and could be accessed through Independent Online (IOL) and other search engines.

When the apology was published, the Sunday Tribune conveniently omitted to post their apology on the internet and therefore the irresponsible article was still available on the internet. This was pointed out to the Office of the Press Ombudsman.

It is important to mention that from the time the Press Ombudsman's ruling was issued i.e. on 11 July 2010, the Sunday Tribune has refused, neglected and or failed to post the apology on the internet. They have, in my view, chosen to drag this matter further by leaving misleading information about myself, my wife and my daughter Nokulinda on the internet.

When the request was made to the Sunday Tribune to post the apology, they decided to "hide" it in their website so that it can only be accessed by their subscribers. This in my view is dodgy, malicious and raises a lot of questions about the Sunday Tribune's journalism ethics.

Once again, we brought this to the attention of the ombudsman. To date, this apology has not been posted by the Sunday Tribune and this therefore means they have clearly succeeded thus far in violating and disregarding Nokulinda, May and my right to dignity and reputation.

At this point, I wish to point out issues that still remain of concern:

The lazy and lousy journalism by the Sunday Tribune, through its journalist, Nathi Olifant and Editor, Philani Mgwaba, led to the newspaper publishing scurrilous allegations. An example of this is the erroneous statements made about my daughter, Nokulinda, which in my view show lack of basic standards of professionalism by journalists.

To illustrate this, Nokulinda was alleged to have been a student at Rhodes University. This is not true. She was said to have been a student straight out of varsity and now landing "juicy contracts". This is also not true. However my daughter's reputation remains dented in the public as she is seen as an inexperienced graduate who was awarded with provincial tenders undeservingly and through her father's position.

Such misleading information still remains in the public eye and Nokulinda continues to suffer prejudice and has to live with a tainted reputation caused by the Sunday Tribune.

Secondly, my wife Dr Mashego, who is a seasoned professional businesswoman and community worker who has now had to live with an angry community that feels cheated by her alleged involvement in the provincial tenders i.e. in Edendale hospital, in the same province where her husband is the premier.

Once again, my wife continues to suffer prejudice and still has to answer questions from people who accessed this false article on the internet. It is clear that despite the solid ruling handed down by the Press Ombudsman, the Sunday Tribune has not taken such a ruling serious and respected the Press Ombudsman's Office. This has therefore not yielded the desired outcome to me, my wife and my daughter.

The damage caused by the Sunday Tribune to my name and that of my family remains uncorrected and we will not stop until justice is done. I must reiterate that I was fully satisfied by the ruling of the ombudsman. I have high respect for the office in the manner and speed with which this matter was dispose of.

Our legal advice was that our case was strong and our prospects of success in the court of law were high. We chose to take the conciliatory route to give the Sunday Tribune an opportunity to correct what we believed was an innocent human error.

What I have never publicly stated was that I personally called Mr Philani Mgwaba and offered friendly advice for a simple retraction as I expect that the media may often in good faith, get it all wrong. I do not believe in a confrontational relationship with the media. However it is fair to expect that the same enthusiasm to publish an expose must be used to correct a genuine mistake.

The newspaper actually undermines the Office of the Press Ombudsman. It creates an impression that the media may disregard the spirit of the ombudsman's ruling and get away with impunity.

I am convinced such conduct would not have been tolerated by a court of law. This action makes us doubt if at all the media respects the Press Ombudsman or take the rulings seriously. If the media is free to publish and expose suspected wrong doing it should be enthusiastic in ensuring total retraction if they commit a mistake.

I also believe the ruling of the Press Ombudsman has huge implications for ethics journalism and standards of fairness and justice in the media. The media cannot be the ones to offend this sense of justice which is based. If the editorial leadership misses the principle it is an unfortunate path for journalism to take.

Statement issued by the KwaZulu-Natal Office of the Premier, August 17 2010

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter