Complaint against Daily Maverick Steinhoff stories dismissed

All three complaints against Daily Maverick in relation to stories on Steinhoff’s implosion were dismissed by the Press Ombud.

There’s a joke about the guy who goes every week to his chosen house of worship and prays that God – just once – lets him win the lottery. But he never does. And still, he goes on and on and on, praying week after week after week for divine intervention. Eventually the heavens open, and a deep voice shouts out: “Could you perhaps meet me halfway and buy a ticket?”

Raymond Paola, a former senior employee at the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) who jumped before he could be pushed, complained about a series of articles in Daily Maverick that, among other things, provided a “one-sided view” that was “devoid of context”. But when approached by Daily Maverick’s Pauli van Wyk for his side of the story, his response was to refer her to his lawyer, who then declined to respond.

Unsurprisingly, Paola’s version of events didn’t make its way into any of the three impugned articles. Instead, it had to wait for publication in the Deputy Press Ombud’s 4 July 2024 ruling in Raymond J Paola vs Daily Maverick, in which all four of Paola’s complaints were dismissed. In a comprehensive decision that runs to over 30 pages, every single basis for Mr Paola’s complaints was rejected.

Before considering the ruling, it is important to understand its backdrop. The three impugned articles all focus on various aspects of the Steinhoff story, or as journalist Rob Rose calls it, Steinheist. According to Rose, “[t]he Steinhoff crash wiped more than R200-billion off the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, erased more than half the wealth of tycoon Christo Wiese and knocked the pension funds of millions of ordinary South Africans.”

Much has been (and will continue to be) written about Steinhoff. In the first of her three articles, van Wyk focused on allegations of corruption against Paola, in his capacity (at the relevant time) as divisional head at SARB’s Financial Surveillance Department “tasked with overseeing Steinhoff’s large cross-border transactions.” In the other two articles (the second of which was co-written by Neesa Moodley), van Wyk focused on the Steinhoff mastermind, Mr Marcus Jooste, who had just died by suicide.

While Paola’s complaint to the Press Ombud was lodged in respect of all three articles, it understandably focused on the first, which had focused on him. In that article, which relied on internal SARB information that the bank had kept under wraps for years, van Wyk detailed a set of concerns relating to Paola’s alleged role in facilitating offshore transactions that were said to have “contravened a litany of the bank’s rules governing cross-border transactions”.

Facing internal charges relating to allegations of “gross dishonesty, a conflict of interest, the abuse of confidential information, soliciting gifts and the failure to declare those gifts”, Paola chose rather to resign, effectively putting an end to the disciplinary process. But that did not stop SARB from referring a complaint against Paola, Jooste, and another SARB colleague to the Hawks, which – as van Wyk reports – is apparently under investigation by the Specialised Commercial Crime unit.

The Deputy Press Ombud dedicates a significant chunk of his (lengthy) ruling to providing a summary of the three articles, the complaint, Daily Maverick’s defence, and Paola’s reply. At issue in his analysis, which follows, is whether particular aspects of the articles transgress one or more of the following five clauses of the Press Code

• clause 1.1, which deals with the reporting of news “truthfully, accurately and fairly”;
• clause 1.2, which requires news to be presented “in context and in a balanced manner”;
• clause 1.3, which only allows for the presentation, as fact, of what “what may reasonably be true”, with “opinions, allegations, rumours and suppositions” having to be “presented clearly as such”;
• clause 1.4, which ordinarily requires news to be obtained “legally, honestly and fairly”, but also makes provision for a public interest defence; and
• clause 3.3, which – in large part – effectively incorporates the law of defamation into the Press Code.

That no part of any of any article was found wanting speaks to the quality of van Wyk’s journalism and/or her editor’s careful eye. They have managed to negotiate a tricky set of (often contradictory) rules in respect of an explosive set of allegations that may well have tempted others to throw caution to the wind. It also speaks to the inherent danger of choosing not to engage when a journalist comes knocking for answers. You can’t complain about a one-sided story when you choose not to tell your side.

One last aspect of the ruling also deserves attention: the “established Press Council practice to allow confidential information to be shared with the Press Ombud”. Paola had complained that such a disclosure of information, in respect of which he had not been granted an opportunity to reply, violated his right to be heard. But he proposed no alternative way to protect Daily Maverick’s sources.

And in a context where he had chosen not to comment on the substance of the allegations, could he really complain, long after the fact, about not being able to express a view on their provenance?

Read More at GroundUp