Apology to Zille

THE office of the Press Ombudsman last week ruled against Sowetan and ordered us to apologise, on our front page, to Democratic Alliance leader and premier of Western Cape Helen Zille for an editorial we published on January 28, as well as for a poster.

The editorial, headlined "Zille must come clean", raised questions about the DA-led Western Cape government that reportedly "has spent R684m on consultants in just one year".

It stated that Zille had failed to fully account for how she had spent the money on these "so-called experts". The editorial also said Zille was accountable to the South African public, ending off by saying: "We agree with the ANC that Zille must come out and publicly declare who are the consultants she has hired and at what cost."

The poster read: "Zille wasted R660m".

Deputy Press Ombudsman Johan Retief said Sowetan had breached:

• Article 4.3 of the Press Code for not taking fair account of all available material facts when referring to R684million that was reportedly spent on consultants (we did not take R270m that was part of the R684m, but that was not spent on consultants, into consideration);
• Article 1.2 for referring to consultants as "so-called" experts, thereby unnecessarily casting doubt on their expertise; and
• Article 5.2 for the misleading and unfair poster, as we stated it as a fact that Zille had wasted R660m.

Retief said: "The editorial was, of course, not published on the front page. However, the posters were extremely unfair and may unnecessarily have caused huge damage to Zille. To make up for this, Sowetan is directed to publish an apology to her on its front page..."

He dismissed the complaint regarding the:

• Sentence that was said to be wrongfully attributed to Zille, as it appears in an official document that contains her answers to questions posed to her;
• Statement that Zille failed to properly account for expenditure – we were justified in raising questions and making critical statements, even though Zille may have properly accounted for expenditure;
• Fact that the newspaper did not ask Zille for comment (it was an editorial and we were under no obligation to do so);
•   Implication that Zille was politically ignorant, as it was our opinion to which we were entitled;
•   The headline, because it reflected the content of the editorial; and
• Statement by Zille that we were motivated by malice.

We hereby apologise to Zille for the unfair posters, for not taking fair account of all available material facts (with reference to R684 million that was reportedly spent on consultants) and for referring to consultants as “so-called” experts.

Visit www.presscouncil. org.za (rulings, 2011) for the full finding.