Dr Shuaib Manjra
Applicant
and
Cape Times
Respondent
Matter No: 1148/05/2015
Decision on application for leave to appeal
In its editorial of April 13, 2015, the Cape Times (“respondent”) expressed itself in support of the nuclear peace deal concluded between Iran and five major powers. This attracted a response from Mr Eric Marx, chair Cape South African Jewish Board of Deputies.
In his article titled “Paper’s baffling stance on Iran”, which was published in an oped, Mr Marx criticised the editorial; he felt that it had been partisan in its support of the deal, in favour of Iran. He argued that the editorial wrongly portrayed Iran as a peace-loving country; he mentioned several violent incidents which he says were supported by Iran, ranging from Norway to South America, East Africa and the Middle East.
In his article, published by the respondent, also in an oped on May 4, 2015, Dr Shuaib Manjra (“applicant”), joined issue with Mr Marx and defended the respondent’s editorial. He portrayed both the good and bad side of Iran, but, in the process, criticised Israel and some of its policies such as those towards the Palestinians. In the process, he criticised Mr Marx.
In turn, the applicant’s response to Mr Marx attracted a response by Mr Glen Heneck, also in an oped, published on May 12, 2015. Needless to say, Mr Marx criticised the applicant in a number of respects (I return to this later).
The applicant wrote a response to Mr Heneck, but the respondent refused to publish it. After failed numerous attempts and much effort to persuade the respondent, the applicant eventually lodged a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman. He wanted “either the publication of his article in full or alternatively a correction in the Cape Times pointing out Heneck’s disingenuousness in his response.”
In its defence, the respondent, through its journalist, responded as follows: “I have spoken to the Editor of the Cape Times, Mr Aneez Salie, who feels that the topic at hand is a serious one. However, an oped letter is within the sole discretion of the editor regarding the question of whether to publish a letter or not.”
The journalist then referred to a decision of the Ombudsman in a previous matter, namely, Allister Sparks vs Cape Times, which the applicant says is distinguishable from the present case.
One of the complaints the applicant has against Heneck’s article is that he was misinterpreted and attacked; he wanted to set the record straight. In his ruling dated June 17, 2015, the Ombudsman dismissed the applicant’s complaint.
The Ombudsman stated in his ruling that he had to consider whether the applicant had been misrepresented by Heneck. He held that even “if Heneck’s article has misinterpreted Manjra, such a mistaken opinion was not serious enough”. The Ombudsman said that he had no mandate to interfere with editorial decision; accordingly, he could not order the respondent to publish the applicant’s letter. The complaint was therefore dismissed; hence this application.
I have read Heneck’s response carefully. I do not think it mounts the kind of attack the applicant says it does. It might have been robust; but it was overall civil and restrained. It did not even appear to be personal; it kept to the substance of the debate. Turning to the issue of editorial discretion: one respects it; however, in suitable cases such a decision may have to attract some consequences. I do not believe that harm should be caused to individuals, and be allowed to stand, all in the name of editorial discretion. It is inconceivable that a paper can offer a platform for a scathing attack by A on B, but, in the name of editorial discretion, refuse to publish B’s response. However, the present is not such a case. As I have already said, Heneck was restrained and civil and really kept to the point which was the subject of debate; the issue is not whether he was right or wrong. I therefore hold that the Ombudsman’s ruling cannot be faulted.
For the reasons given above, the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; the application is therefore dismissed.
Dated this 14th day of August 2015.
Judge B M Ngoepe
Chair, Appeals Panel