Paramount Group & Ivor Ichikowitz vs The Continent & Mail & Guardian

Wed, Sep 20, 2023

Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud

Date of publication:

17 June 2023 (The Continent)

19 June (Mail & Guardian)

Headline of publication:

The arms dealer behind the African peace mission to Ukraine

Subtitle: A weapons manufacturer on a peace mission. What could possibly go wrong? (The Continent)

The arms dealer behind the African peace mission to Ukraine (Mail & Guardian)

Author: Simon Allison

Particulars

1. The complainants are Ivor Ichikowitz and the company he founded, the Paramount Group.
2. The complaint was lodged on 11 July by attorney Megan Ross, acting on behalf of the complainants.  
3. The complaint was laid against The Continent and the Mail and Guardian. The article was first published in The Continent, and then republished by the Mail & Guardian.  Responses came from Sipho Kings, editorial director for The Continent, on behalf of both publications.
4. In their first response to the published article, the complainants on 20 June wrote a letter to the respondents demanding that it be published in an unredacted form, failing which a complaint would be laid with the Press Council of SA.  The respondents declined to do so.
5. I considered the following documents:

5.1 The complaint, with several annexures

5.2 The original reports

5.3 The newspaper’s response to the complaint, dated 24 July 2023, and

5.4 A rejoinder from the complainant, filed on 2 August.

1. In its first response, The Continent offered an apology for some elements of the reporting and offered space for a right of reply. However, the complainant requested further apologies and retractions which the respondent was not prepared to give. As a result, the complaint was submitted for ruling. To the extent that the discussion about the offer illuminates the parties’ positions, I have taken it into account. 

The report

7. The report highlights Ichikowitz’s involvement in the African peace mission to Ukraine and Russia.  The key claims are:

7.1 Ichikowitz’s involvement became public knowledge when Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni published a screenshot of a Zoom meeting of six African leaders discussing the peace mission. The image was sent out on Twitter, now X, and showed Ichikowitz attending the meeting together with Jean-Yves Ollivier of the Brazzaville Foundation, which has supported the initiative.

7.2 Ichikowitz is identified as the owner of one of the largest arms manufacturers in Africa, and its clients include several dictatorial regimes.  The group has been implicated in various corruption scandals, “most notably” in Malawi over a $145m deal to supply patrol boats. Ichikowitz is quoted as denying wrongdoing and as saying that no charges of corruption have ever been laid.

7.3 His involvement in the African peace mission is described as “murky”, and the report quotes a spokesperson for the office of President Cyril Ramaphosa, who led the mission, as saying he was unaware of the involvement of Ichikowitz.

7.4 The article further says that Ichikowitz’s role and “potential commercial interest” is likely to complicate the negotiations, though it is not known whether his company is supplying arms to either side.

7.5 However, a news website is quoted as reporting the presence of an armoured vehicle produced by the company on the Russian front lines.

7.6 The article then outlines some links between Ichikowitz, the Brazzaville Foundation and Russia.

The complaint

8. The complaint is that the article breached clause 1.8 of the Press Code, in that Ichikowitz and Paramount were not given a chance to respond.
9. The complaint is further that the article breached 1.1, 1,2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.9 and 6 of the Press Code in various respects.
10. The complaint is that the headline was misleading, in breach of clause 10 of the Press Code.
11. I will outline the various elements of the complaint, together with the newspaper’s response and give my view on each. I follow the structure of the complaint as set out in the original submission by Ross.

Complaint 1: Failure to obtain a response (section 11.1 of the complaint)

Arguments

12. The complainants point out the section of the report saying that Ichikowitz, as well as the Brazzaville Foundation, “did not respond to The Continent’s requests to answer questions for this story”. In fact, they say, their media liaison officer agreed to a discussion, though it would need to take place after the peace mission due to the sensitive nature of negotiations.
13. Accordingly, the complainants allege breach of section 1.8 of the Press Code.
14. The respondent accepted that “we could have done better on the right of reply”, by providing more specific details of what they intended to publish, and offered an apology on this score.

Discussion

15. It is clear from the correspondence supplied in the complaint that the Continent sent an email requesting comment to Ichikowitz on June 12^th, with a follow-up a day later. The request was made in very general terms. On the 14^th, a response came from Nico de Klerk, communications director for the Ichikowitz family foundation, declining to make public comment.  However, he offered an off the record discussion after the peace mission was over.
16. The Continent is correct, in my view, to concede that the inquiry should have been more specific about the questions they intended to ask.  
17. Furthermore, the published statement on the issue should have indicated that the refusal to comment was specific to on-the-record comment. 

Ruling

18. This element of the complaint is upheld.  

Complaint 2: Misleading headline (section 11.2 of the complaint)

Arguments

19. The complainant argues that the headline, “The arms dealer behind the African peace mission to Ukraine”, is misleading.  The argument rests on elements of the report which the respondents object to, around allegedly ulterior motives by Ichikowitz; the claim his involvement was to be secret and claims that he supplied arms to the warring parties.  The complaint argues that the use of the term “arms dealer” is inclined to evoke negative connotations.
20. Accordingly, the complainants allege breach of clauses 1.2 and 10.1 of the Press Code.
21. The respondent does not directly address this point, though the general statement that they stand by their reporting covers it.

Discussion

22. The three elements of the report that are mentioned by the complainant as being objectionable will be dealt with below. However, I do not see how any of them are reflected in the headline.
23. The report deals with the involvement of Ichikowitz and Paramount in the peace mission, an involvement that is not denied by the complainants.  As such, the headline is a fair reflection of the report’s content.
24. The complainants acknowledge their involvement in the arms trade. As such, the use of the term “arms dealer” seems perfectly reasonable. 

Ruling

25. This element of the complaint is dismissed.

Complaint 3: Inaccurate reporting – secrecy (section 11.3 of the complaint)

Arguments:

26. The complainants dispute that Ichikowitz’s involvement in the peace mission was a secret. As evidence, they point to the fact that the tweet by Museveni was retweeted by Ichikowitz himself, and that a spokesperson confirmed involvement to the Globe and Mail.  They also point to other Tweets on the June 5 meeting, by the President of Senegal and a Chinese news network.
27. Accordingly, the complainants allege breach of 1.2 and again, 1.8 of the Press Code.
28. The Continent says their characterisation of the Museveni Tweet as inadvertent is based on the views of a close observer of the peace process and is supported by Magwenya’s statement that he did not know about it.   They also argue that all other public statements on the involvement followed after the Museveni Tweet.
29. In their response, the complainants demand an apology for the statement that the Tweet was “infamously leaked”, on the basis that the public nature of their involvement in the peace process has now been proved.

Discussion

30. Was the complainant’s involvement in the peace initiative public knowledge before the appearance of Museveni’s Tweet? No evidence has been provided of any public disclosure before June 5, the day that Tweets by Museveni and others appeared.
31. Does this mean the involvement was being kept secret, and that Museveni made a mistake in Tweeting the picture that revealed it? The respondents cite the views of a close observer and the statement of Magwenya, in Ramaphosa’s office, as evidence that the involvement was being kept secret.  
32. In my view, the respondents read too much into the evidence at their disposal.  It would have been perfectly reasonable to report that the involvement emerged in Museveni’s Tweet, but to say this was a mistake and that the role was being kept secret moved into the realm of speculation. If a source believed it to be a mistake, they could have been quoted as saying so, even if anonymously.
33. It should be noted that the article did not say that Museveni “infamously leaked” the information, as the complainants say.

Ruling

34. This aspect of the complaint is upheld.

Complaint 4: Inaccurate reporting – commercial interest (section 11.4 of the complaint)

Arguments

35. The complainants object to the reference to a “potential commercial interest”. They say this is contradicted by the statement in the article that it is not known whether Paramount is supplying either side in the Ukraine-Russia war, and that in fact no weapons have been supplied. The reference to the sighting of an armoured vehicle on the Russian frontline is dismissed as referring to the wrong vehicle: it was an Arlan, not a Marauder. The vehicle was produced by an associated company in Kazakhstan, KPE, and supplied to Russia for field trials long before the conflict.
36. Accordingly, the complainants allege breach of clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.7 and 1.8 of the Press Code.
37. The respondents say they did not claim an actual commercial interest, and were open about the fact that it is unknown whether Paramount is selling arms into the conflict. They say the reference to the vehicle seen on the frontline was a “Marauder-type” vehicle, which accurately describes the Arlan, which Paramount on their website describes as a winterised version of the Marauder.
38. In their rejoinder, the complainants insist that an apology must be made on the allegation that Paramount has a commercial interest in the conflict, as the respondents now have the facts at their disposal.

Discussion

39. Careful reading of the article does not support the interpretation that it is claiming actual commercial involvement by the company in the Ukraine conflict. The reference is to “potential” commercial interest, not actual commercial interest, and in my view it is reasonable to say that an arms manufacturer may potentially have a commercial interest in an armed conflict.
40. I can find nothing in the article that goes any further than questioning why an armaments company would be involved in a peace initiative, which is a legitimate line of inquiry and of strong public interest.
41. The reference to the armoured vehicle is in line with Paramount’s own description of the vehicle.

Ruling

42. This element of the complaint is dismissed.

Complaint 5: Inaccurate reporting – links to the Kremlin (section 11.5 of the complaint)

Arguments

43. The complainants argue that the reporting linking Ichikowitz to the Kremlin and an oligarch “insinuates” that he is a strong supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin. The fact that he was invited to participate in a 2019 event organised by a think tank associated with Vladimir Yakunin, described in the article as a supporter of Putin, does not constitute enough evidence to make the claim.
44. Accordingly, the complainants allege breach of clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.7 and 1.8 of the Press Code.
45. The respondents say the article did not make the claim that Ichikowitz supports the Russian side, but merely describes links that exist. They highlight the fact that the article focuses also on the links between the Brazzaville Foundation, a key player in the peace initiative, and Yakunin.
46. In their response, the complainants insist on an apology and retraction of the claim that they are linked to a major oligarch linked to Putin.  They reiterate that Ichikowitz’s attendance at an event organised by the Rhodes Forum is insufficient evidence for the claim.

Discussion

47. Careful reading of the report shows that the section on links to Russia highlights several strands. It is true that simply speaking at the Rhodes Forum would constitute a tenuous basis for representing Ichikowitz as a Putin supporter.  However, the Brazzaville Foundation, with whom Ichikowitz worked on the Ukraine peace initiative, has several links to Vladimir Yakunin, who in turn is convincingly described as being a supporter of Putin. Among other points, the foundation has a partnership with a think-tank run by Yakunin, the Dialogue of Civilisations.  Ichikowitz, in turn, is described as “an enthusiastic supporter and funder” of the Brazzaville Foundation.  The complainants do not deny these links.
48. In my view, the article sufficiently establishes the existence of links, though indirect, to Russia.  It does not have sufficient basis to accuse Ichikowitz of being a Putin ally – but it does not do so.

Ruling

49. This element of the complaint is dismissed.

Complaint 6: Exaggeration – “murky” involvement (section 11.6 of the complaint)

Arguments

50. The complainants argue that the use of the word murky insinuates that there is something questionable or suspicious about their involvement in the peace initiative. They argue the fact that Ramaphosa’s spokesperson was unaware does not constitute sufficient evidence for the use of the term.
51. In that respect, they allege breach of Clause 1.2 and, again, 1.8 of the Press Code.
52. The respondents argue that murky simply means that the nature of the complainants’ involvement is unclear and not publicly disclosed. The fact that Magwenya did not know about it does bear their interpretation out, they argue.
53. In their response, the complainants demand a retraction of the term.  If they had been given a proper chance to respond, they could have shown the open and transparent nature of their involvement.

Discussion

54. At the time the article was written, The Continent did not have any explanation for the involvement by Ichikowitz in the peace initiative.  Though I have found that the publication should have provided more detailed questions, the wording of the initial inquiry to the complainants certainly provided an opening for them to say something about their involvement. They chose not to do so publicly, though they did offer the Globe and Mail a comment, as they point out. 
55. Magwenya’s comment illustrates that the involvement was unclear to a key official, for whatever reason. 
56. In my view, given the information at their disposal at the time of writing, it is fair to describe the complainants’ involvement in the initiative as unclear.  It stands to reason that the involvement of an arms manufacturer in a peace process is likely to raise questions among the public, and needs some explanation.
57. The term “murky” undoubtedly has some negative connotations, but is a reasonable equivalent for “unclear”.

Ruling

This aspect of the complaint is dismissed.    

Complaint 7: Inaccuracy – implicated in corruption (section 11.7 of the complaint)

Arguments

58. The complainants object to sections of the report saying that they have been implicated in multiple claims of corruption, including in Malawi.  The report is misleading by omitting that no action has been taken against them as a result of the allegations, they say.  Furthermore, the complainants say the amount in the Malawi case was not $145m but $17m.  They also say that The Continent’s reliance on previously published reports is unacceptable.
59. As a result, the complainants allege breach of clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.7 and, again, 1.8 of the Press Code.
60. The respondents argue that the Malawi scandal is a matter of public record, and so they are entitled to rely on published material. They say they are happy to correct the amount involved if evidence to that effect is supplied.
61. The complainants do not return to this point in their rejoinder.

Discussion

62. The initial report reflected the complainants’ denial of wrongdoing. In my view, this satisfies the requirement of fairness.
63. If the amount widely quoted as being at stake in the Malawi scandal is incorrect, it should be corrected.  Evidence to this effect would need to be provided, as argued by the respondents. 

Ruling

This aspect of the complaint is dismissed, except that the amount at stake in Malawi should be corrected if shown to be incorrect.

Rulings

Accordingly, I find that:

64. The Continent and the Mail and Guardian breached clause 1.8 of the Press Code. In requesting comment, they did not provide sufficient clarity to the complainants on the nature of the report they were preparing. 
65. The Continent and the Mail & Guardian breached clause 1.3 of the Press Code.  Though the complaint was of breach of clause 1.2, clause 1.3 is more appropriate since the description of the involvement as secret, and the reporting of Museveni’s Tweet as having been a mistake, was speculative and should have been identified as such.
66. The Continent and the Mail & Guardian are directed to

66.1 Publish a correction and apology for the report.

66.2 The note should appear in the next PDF edition of The Continent and in the next print edition of the Mail & Guardian, both on the same page as the original report. The note should be published on its website by the Mail & Guardian, at the foot of the existing article. Between the headline and the start of the report, a line should be published saying: “Apology and correction: see bottom of article”.

66.3 The note should include the words “Apology”, “Correction”, “Ichikowitz” and “Paramount Group” in its headline.

66.4 The note should

1. Reference the failure to provide enough details in asking for comment.
2. Make it clear that though the complainants’ involvement in the peace initiative was at that time not public knowledge, describing it as secret was speculative, as was the description of Museveni’s Tweet as a mistake.
3. If there is confirmation that the amount involved in the Malawi scandal is incorrect, that figure should be corrected.
4. The note should also include the key elements of the complainants’ version of events, including that there was no secrecy; that they supply no weapons into the Ukraine conflict; and that they have no links to nor support the Russian government.

66.4.5.   The note should make it clear it is in line with a ruling by the Deputy Ombud, Franz Krüger, and refer readers to the full text of this ruling on the PCSA website.

66.4.6    The apology should be published with the Press Council logo.

67. The publication is to provide a draft note for approval by the Deputy Ombud before publication.

Appeal

68. The Complaints Procedures lay down that, within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at [email protected]

Franz Krüger
Deputy Press Ombud
20 September 2023