Ombudsman finds we failed to let parliament reply
THE press ombudsman has reprimanded us for failing to give parliament reasonable time to respond to a story detailing its aggressive onslaught on its own staff in an attempt to root out spies and whistleblowers.
Ombudsman Johan Retief said we should have stated in the story, “Parliament in fear as spooks move in” (October 18), that we were unable to obtain comment.
He also directed us to publish comment from parliament’s secretary, Gengezi Mgidlana, which we do here: “Had the minimum professional responsibility been exercised by way of contacting parliament, the journalists would have established that vetting of officials is a regular security exercise which organisations undertake from time to time, both in government and in the private sector.
“The exercise is aimed at determining the security competence of officials and was not a new invention in the fifth parliament. Similar exercises were carried out in previous parliaments. The process has nothing to do with misleading theories about a ‘witch-hunt to weed out those believed to be working against the presiding officers and secretary to parliament’, as was maliciously alleged by the anonymous sources.”
Retief found it was reasonable for us to use the word “outrageous” to describe measures taken during the re-vetting process.
He dismissed a complaint that the article unfairly impugned or maligned Mgidlana’s character, and undermined parliament’s standing. He dismissed a complaint that we failed to use available information, saying it did not hold water.
He also dismissed a complaint about the use of the word “fear” in the headline.
Appeals panel chairman Judge Bernard Ngoepe dismissed an application from parliament for leave to appeal aspects of the ruling that went against it, saying: “One of the important elements in the relationship between an employer and an employee is trust. A move by an employer on an employee, such as revetting, may appear to be heavy-handed, as opposed to a situation where no such relationship exists. By its very nature, a process of re-vetting raises, amongst others, trustworthiness or lack of it; the issue automatically comes into the picture once re-vetting is deemed necessary. In this context, the respondent [Sunday Times] is saying no more than that the exercise of re-vetting one’s employees is drastic, given the alleged circumstances under which it was being undertaken, and also the displeasure on the part of at least some employees.”
For the full ruling, go to www.presscouncil.org.za