Thu, Jul 20, 2017
In the matter of
NEWS 24 - APPLICANT
AND
BLACK FIRST, LAND FIRST - RESPONDENT
MATTER NO: 3280/05/2017
DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
[1] Media 24 (“applicant”) seeks leave to appeal a Ruling of the Press Ombud given in favour of Black First, Land First movement (“respondent”), dated 19 May 2017.The complaint followed an article by the applicant published on 30 April 2017 in the City Press with the headline: “’Prepare for the worst’, says Gigaba’s adviser”. The article was a report on what the views were of the Minister’s adviser, Professor Malikane, on the economy of the country, including economic transformation and nationalization of key sectors of the economy. The professor was speaking at an event which had been organized by the respondent. Amongst other things, the article said Professor Malikane said the following: “We need a two-thirds majority to change the Constitution. Otherwise, to achieve what we want to achieve, we need to go that route [take up arms]. .... A decision to take up arms would have to be discussed and not be a decision made by an individual”. (Own emphasis).
[2] The respondent’s complaint was that Prof Malikane never called for arms. He never uttered the words highlighted above. Respondent argues that on the contrary, the professor spoke against a call for arms, which had been made by a member of the audience.
[3] In its defence, the applicant argued that the fact that the words “take up arms” were in brackets denoted that the words were not the Professor’s, but the author’s, “and that this was a reference to a statement made by someone else. On the very same quote, City Press adds the rest of Prof Malikana’s statement which reveals that he is against the idea of taking up arms, and that he prefers a democratic process”. The explanation given is, at best, self-contradictory. I don’t understand how the so-called “author’s quotes” convey a message that the professor was against the taking up of arms. It is entirely inconsistent with the assertion that the article sought to convey that he was against the taking up of arms. The problem is that if the article purports to convey that Prof Malikane wants a change through democratic process, it in the same breath conveys that he is calling for arms. It is also not clear how the author’s quote, being a call to arms, clarifies professor’s view of change through democratic processes. The article also failed to mention that reference to arms was in response to questions from the audience.
[4] I have considered what the Ombud says in his Ruling, and I agree fully with the findings. The explanation given by the applicant is so far from convincing that there are no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; that being the case, the application should be dismissed. As far as the sanction is concerned, it could only be interfered with if the Ombud misdirect himself or it was grossly inappropriate; there is none of that. I also think that the applicant underestimates the seriousness of a call to arms and, as the Ombud says, the impact the story might have on the individual. As the Ombud correctly observes, the climate is not right for anybody to be seen to be making such a call.
[5] For the reasons I give above, as also for those given by the Ombud, the application is dismissed.
Dated this 19th day of July 2017
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel
Issued by the Press Council, 19 July 2017
