Press Ombudsman vindicates Comrade Tony Yengeni and the ANC on the Mail & Guardian

Barely a week after the Mail & Guardian published a defamatory story about the National Chairperson of the African National Congress, the Appeal Panel of the Press Council has vindicated the ANC's assertion that the Mail & Guardian is on a rampage to discredit the African National Congress and its leadership. 

The ruling by the Appeals Panel arises from an application by the paper for leave to appeal a decision of the Press Ombudsman that the Mail & Guardian apologise to ANC National Executive Committee member, Comrade Tony Yengeni, for publishing allegations as fact and causing him undue and unnecessary harm.

In true Mail & Guardian tradition, the paper published a defamatory headline which insinuated that there was record of a bribe signed by Comrade Tony Yengeni, when no such agreement existed nor was it ever seen by the paper. Leave to appeal the decision was refused by Judge Ngoepe, Chairperson of the Appeals Panel, citing that the allegations stated as facts are seriously harmful.

The African National Congress respects the constitutionally enshrined right of the freedom of the press. This right comes inextricably linked to an obligation to truthful, accurate and fair reporting, an obligation the Mail & Guardian continues to blatantly disregard in its quest to demonise and delegitimise the African National Congress and its leaders in the eyes of the public. Desperately, the paper clutches at non-existent straws in an effort to breathe life into cadavers of rumours and insinuations with the sole purpose of publishing anything that will reduce the support enjoyed by the African National Congress amongst the masses of our people.

The African National Congress will never allow a situation where our freedoms are abused by anyone in their haste to fulfil political agendas at the behest of nameless and faceless sources. To this end, we trust that the legal remedies available to deal with libel and defamation will be exercised by Comrade Tony Yengeni in this matter, sending a clear message to the press that ANC leaders, like all citizens, too have a constitutionally enshrined right to dignity and fair and truthful reporting. 

Statement issued by Jackson Mthembu, ANC National Spokesperson, September 12 2013

Appeal Decision: Tony Yengeni vs Mail & Guardian

Tue, Sep 10, 2013

In Matter - 181/2013

Mail & Guardian -Applicant

Vs

Tony Yengeni- Respondent

Application for leave to appeal to the Appeals Panel

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal the Ruling and subsequent sanction by the Ombudsman. The Ruling was on a complaint lodged by the respondent in the wake of a story published in applicant's edition of 14 June 2013. The respondent complained about the two headlines as well as against the contents of the article.

2. The first headline read: Revealed: " Yengeni's R-million ‘kickback' agreement-German police find record of deal signed by ANC heavyweight when he headed Parliament's defence committee." The second headline, to be followed by the story, read: "Yengeni's R6m ‘bribe deal'-Raid on German company revealed ‘bribe' to Yengeni to secure purchase of corvettes."

3. The Ombudsman found that the first headline violated article 10.2 of the code. He dismissed the complaint relating to the second heading, as also the one relating to the content of the story. As a sanction he ordered the applicant to publish a correction to be approved by him. The application seeks leave to appeal the Ombudsman's Ruling and sanction.

4. It is my considered view that if were to be granted, the appeal would have any reasonable prospects of success. As the Ombudsman correctly points out, the first headline states as a fact that for example that there was an "agreement" to bribe; that there was a "record of deal" which was "signed" by the respondent. The words I bracketed were not done so by applicant, thereby giving an impression that they were not mere allegations but facts. Applicant argues amongst others that upon reading the contents of the story, a reader would realize that the headline merely stated allegations.

Applicant says that the headline must be read in conjunction with the story to determine whether or not it is factual or merely states allegations. I do not agree. I do not think the content of the story would redeem a headline which misstates allegations as being facts. It could be equally argued that the contents of the story illustrates all the more why some crucial words in the headline should have been put in quotation marks. The sting in the offending headline cannot be taken out by the content. In any case, it would fair to say that some readers may not go into the story itself, especially as it does not immediately follow the headline and does not even appear on the same page as the headline concerned. Regarding the sanction, I do not think that it is too severe. The allegations stated as facts are serious harmful.

5. For the reasons given above, as also those given by the Ombudsman, I hold that there are no reasonable prospects of success against either the Ruling or sanction by the Ombudsman. The application is therefore refused.

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair of the Appeals Panel

Dated 10 September 2013

Issued by the Press Council, September 10 2013

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