Paramount Group & Ivor Ichikowitz vs Vrye Weekblad

Wed, Sep 20, 2023

Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud

Dates of publication:

19 & 23 June 2023  

Headline of publication:

Ukraine: this was never an African initiative (19 June)

Slow down, tovarich: Russia, the peace initiative and the arms dealer (23 June)

Author: Max du Preez

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 Vrye Weekblad.  A response was filed on August 8 by Max du Preez, as both editor and author.
4. The complainants responded on 22 August.
5. After the first report was published, the complainants wrote to Vrye Weekblad to object, rebutting several aspects of the article and demanding that the letter be published in unedited form.  Vrye Weekblad’s second article contained substantial elements of the complainant’s letter, but also significant material that sought to rebut their statements.
6. I considered the following documents:

6.1 The complaint, with several annexures;

6.2 The original reports;

6.3 The newspaper’s response to the complaint;  

6.4 A rejoinder from the complainant.

The reports

7. The first report asserts that there is now “solid information” that the Ukraine peace initiative by six African presidents was in fact an initiative by Ichikowitz and Jean-Yves Ollivier, described as “two shadowy billionaires” in the “orbit” of Russian president Vladimir Putin.
8. The article describes some of the events around the mission, and outlines Ollivier’s history and alleged links with apartheid South Africa, UK PR firm Bell Pottinger and Russia.
9. The article reports speculation that arms from the Paramount Group may have been loaded onto the Russian ship that controversially docked in Simon’s Town.
10. It identifies Ichikowitz as active in the arms and defence industry and an ANC donor. It also describes Paramount as specialising in imports and export from Russia.
11. The article quotes a statement by a spokesperson for the Ichikowitz family Foundation confirming their involvement in the peace initiative, as well as other reported evidence about Ichikowitz’s involvement.
12. The article concludes with the question whether the peace initiative may have been orchestrated by the Kremlin for its own purposes, but says further investigation would be necessary.

13. The second report starts by referring to the letter of complaint about the first report that was received from the CEO of Paramount, Steve Griessel. It then points out that the letter did not deny that Ichikowitz and Ollivier played a role in the peace initiative, and various other points.
14. The article then reflects the company’s denial that it is a Russian arms manufacturer, and refers extensively to published reports that purport to show the company’s links to Russia, as well as an involvement in Saudi Arabia.
15. Vrye Weekblad then provides the Paramount statement on these issues, reproduced verbatim.    

The complaint

16. 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.
17. The complaint is further that the article breached 1.1, 1,2, 1.3, 1.7 and 6 of the Press Code, by publishing untrue material.
18. The complainants also allege a breach of clause 10, in that the headline and captions were misleading.
19. 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.
20. Note that the complainants say in relation to every element of their complaint that Vrye Weekblad should have asked for comment and did not. I will deal with this element in a single discussion, at the end.

Complaint 1: Inaccurate reporting – arms loaded onto Russian ship (section 10.1 of the complaint)

Arguments

21. The complainants argue that linking Paramount to the incident in which goods were loaded onto a Russian ship, the Lady R, in Simon’s Town was highly injurious, and that Vrye Weekblad should have taken steps to verify the information.  She points to the fact that the newspaper said in its second article that it had no information to this effect and admits to its speculative nature.
22. Accordingly, the complainants allege breach of section 1.1, 1.2, 1.7 and 1.8 of the Press Code.
23. Du Preez argues that the statement was presented in a way that made it clear it was unverified.  Reference to “speculation” and the term “may have been” were used. He argues this ensured the statement complied with the Press Code, which requires that unverified information be presented as such.
24. In a lengthy response, the complainants argue that the Press Code only allows material to be published if it can be reasonably held to be true. Accordingly, Vrye Weekblad’s argument does not stand, they say. Furthermore, as the claims stood to harm them substantially, extra efforts should have been taken to verify them.

Discussion

25. The complainants misread the Press Code. The relevant section is 1.3, which reads: (The media shall) “present only what may reasonably be true as fact; opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such”. This does not mean that speculation can never be reported, as the complainants argue, just that it must be clear what it is. Of course, the provision allowing speculation to be reported should not be used lightly, and only in cases of strong public interest. 
26. In making it clear that the possibility was unconfirmed, Vrye Weekblad satisfied the conditions for making the statement.
27. I accept that Paramount’s reputation stood to be harmed by the claim. However, this does not outweigh the right of the publication to report on the matter.

Ruling

28. This element of the complaint is dismissed.  

Complaint 2: Inaccurate reporting - import and export from Russia (section 10.2 of the complaint)

Arguments

29. The complainant says the claim that Paramount specialises in import and exporting arms from Russia is untrue. The company has never had a contract with Russia, and does not operate in that country. The complainants argue that the claim is very damaging in the context of economic sanctions against Russia.
30. The information provided in the second article, about Paramount’s collaboration with KPE in Kazakhstan, is irrelevant as that country has long been independent of Russia, the complainants say.
31. Accordingly, they claim breaches of clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7 and 1.8 of the Press Code.
32. Vrye Weekblad, in response, says the statement was not important in the overall article. Du Preez concedes that the Paramount Transport Company may not be linked to the complainants, and offers to withdraw the link if denied by the complainants.
33. He then refers to several pieces of information that he says show Paramount’s links to Russia. These include:

33.1 A report on Paramount’s partnership with KPE in Kazakhstan, with statements saying that company hopes to export to various countries, including Russia.

33.2 That a version of a Paramount vehicle manufactured by KPE was exhibited at an arms show in Russia;

33.3 That one such vehicle was supplied to Russia in 2019, as confirmed by the complainants;

33.4 The existence of a co-operation agreement involving KPE, another Kazakh firm and a Russian arms company, currently under sanctions for producing for Russia;

33.5 He also argues that the statement does not refer to arms, and so the complaint is academic.

33.6 In their response, the complainants do indeed deny having any link to the Paramount Transport Group.

Discussion

36. The claim in the article is that Paramount specialises in imports and exports from and to Russia.  In context, where Paramount is in discussion precisely because it is active in the arms trade, it is difficult to imagine what else could be referred to but armaments.
37. The newspaper has conceded that the link to the Paramount Transport Company is mistaken.
38. Though the specific items mentioned are not denied by the complainants, it is not clear that they support the statement that Paramount “specialises in imports and exports to Russia” (my emphasis).  They show links in the complex world of armaments manufacture and trade, and that point could have been made.  But they do not show a specialist focus on imports and exports to Russia.

Ruling

39. This element of the complaint is upheld.  

Complaint 3: Inaccurate reporting – sales to Saudi Arabia (section 10.3 of the complaint)

Arguments:

40. The complainants deny ever having had a contract to supply the Saudi government.
41. Accordingly, they claim breach of clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.7 and 1.8 of the Press Code.
42. Vrye Weekblad points to a report published by Defenceweb in 2022 about the signing of a MoU for the production of a Paramount armoured vehicle in Saudi Arabia. The article refers to the need to service the Saudi Armed Forces.
43. The complainants do not respond to this point in their rejoinder.

Discussion

44. I have no reason to doubt Paramount’s statement that they have never had a direct sales agreement with the Saudi government. However, the Defenceweb report shows an agreement to produce vehicles for the Saudi armed forces. As the complainants do not dispute the truth of that report, it must be taken as accurate.
45. In my view, there is sufficient basis for the statement that Paramount is involved in arming Saudi Arabia.
46. The issue of involvement in Saudi Arabia comes up again in separate complaint about the second article, which is dealt with below.

Ruling

47. This aspect of the complaint is dismissed.

Complaint 4: Inaccurate headline – orchestrated by Putin’s confidants (section 10.4 of the complaint)

Arguments

48. The complainants argue that Ichikowitz is not a confidant of Putin, and that such a claim is not actually made in the article. They also argue that in the context of the rest of the article, the headline creates the impression that they are supplying arms into the conflict and have ulterior motives.
49. They provide a more substantial objection to the term “orchestration” at the start of their discussion of the second article (sections 11 – 15). I will deal with the matter here.
50. Accordingly, they argue that the headline is in breach of 1.1 of the Press Code. They also argue that the headline does not reflect the substance of the article itself. Though they do not refer to the relevant clause here, this would constitute breach of clause 10.1 of the Press Code.
51. Vrye Weekblad argues there is good reason to describe Ichikowitz as a confidant of Putin.  The publication also draws attention to several indicators which the paper says support the use of the term “orchestrated”.
52. In their rejoinder, the complainants reiterate that ichikowitz is no confidant of Putin, and say that the links described do not justify the term.

53. Discussion
54. The claim made by the headline is that Ichikowitz (and Ollivier, though we are here only concerned with the former), are confidants of Putin. The additional question is whether the headline reflected the content of the article.
55. The first article mostly deals with alleged links between Ollivier and Russia.  Ichikowitz appears as Ollivier’s “good friend”, and towards the end the statement is made that Paramount specialises in imports and exports into Russia (discussed above).
56. A confidant is defined as somebody with whom one shares secrets. The evidence supplied in the article is insufficient to support the term in relation to Ichikowitz.
57. In his response to the complaint, Du Preez adds several points: a claim that Ichikowitz has often boasted of his access to the Kremlin, though it is not clear where the claim comes from; his involvement in a gold mine in Siberia (he was allegedly handpicked to be involved, though the statement – not report – on engineeringnews.co.za does not say so); and his links to Zuma, who in turn is said to be close to Putin.  These add up to some intriguing connections, but do not provide evidence of the kind of close relationship suggested by the term confidant.
58. What remains is the question of whether the headline reflects the content of the article. The substance of the article, too, emphasises the connections between Ollivier, Ichikowitz and Russia. I can also find no suggestion in the headline that of an ulterior motive to do with the sale of arms, as argued by the complainants.
59. Accordingly, the headline does reflect the article’s content.
60. Then there is the question of whether Ichikowitz and Ollivier orchestrated the peace initiative.  The opening blurb of the article refers to “news that the entire visit to Ukraine and Russia was orchestrated by Vladimir Putin’s confidants”. The opening sentence says that the visit was “not an African initiative at all” but rather that of “two shadowy billionaires in Valdimir Putin’s orbit.”
61. The article ends on a much more cautious note, saying it “no longer seems impossible” that the Kremlin orchestrated the visit, but that “much more investigation” needs to be done.
62. The word “orchestrate” is defined by the Oxford English dictionary as “to arrange or direct (now often surreptitiously) to produce a desired effect”.  The suggestion is clearly that the African leaders were manipulated into undertaking the mission.
63. The evidence clearly suggests that Ollivier and Ichikowitz were involved in making arrangements for the mission, and this is confirmed by the complainants at various times. Did their involvement extend further than support?  Ollivier, in comments to Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-peace-plan-africa-jean-yves-ollivier-1801510) and cited by Du Preez, suggests so.  He mentions that the presidents were his friends, so “why not have a peace mission …? And we started negotiating with Moscow and Kyiv…” Elsewhere, his remarks indicate strong ownership of the initiative (“We have a strong combination” of presidents.)
64. Though the term orchestrate is a strong one, it is justifiable to use it here, particularly in the context of an opinion article, which this clearly is.

Ruling

65. This element of the complaint is upheld, with respect to the description of the two men as confidants of Putin. The complaint in respect of the headline is dismissed. The complaint about the allegation that the two men orchestrated the initiative is dismissed.

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

Arguments

66. 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. They say that 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.
67. Accordingly, the complainants allege breach of clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.7 and 1.8 of the Press Code.
68. The respondent says the article did not make the claim that Ichikowitz supports the Russian side, but merely describes links that exist. He highlights the fact that the article focuses also on the links between the Brazzaville Foundation, a key player in the peace initiative, and Yakunin.
69. 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

70. 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.
71. 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

72. This element of the complaint is dismissed.

SECOND ARTICLE

73. The complaint moves to the second article, beginning with a lengthy discussion on the nature of the peace initiative.  They emphasise that the peace initiative was an initiative by African leaders, and not orchestrated by Ollivier and Ichikowitz, and say that they did not have ulterior motives for being involved.

Complaint 6: Inaccurate reporting – parents’ immigration (section 18.1 of the complaint)

Arguments

74. The statement that Ichikowitz’s parents emigrated from Lithuania to South Africa in the 1930s is untrue, the complainants say. Instead, it was his grandparents who emigrated.
75. They claim breach of clauses 1.1 and 1.8 of the Press Code.
76. In his response, Du Preez concedes the mistake and offers to correct it.
77. In their rejoinder, the complaints say it is false to describe the statement as a mistake: if they had been asked for comment, the matter would have been clarified.

Discussion

78. The respondent has accepted that an error was made.

Ruling

This aspect of the complaint is upheld.     

Complaint 7:  Distortion – “favourite courtier” of presidents (section 18.2 of the complaint)

Arguments

79. The complainants object to the quote from a French publication, Intelligence Online, which called Ichikowitz the “favourite courtier of African presidents Jacob Zuma, Ali Bongo (Gabon) and Denis Sassou Nguesso (Congo- Brazzaville)”.  The complainants deny having a close relationship with the three, and calls the term “favourite courtier” far-fetched and sensationalist.  They also describe Intelligence Online as lacking credibility.
80. Accordingly, they allege breach of clause 1.2 and 1.8 of the code.
81. Du Preez says it is legitimate to reflect what is being written elsewhere about the complainants. It is a comment and should be treated as such, he says, and if the complainants have an issue with it they should take it up with the original publication, Intelligence Online.
82. The complainants do not return to this point in their rejoinder.

Discussion

83. I accept the respondent’s argument that the phrase constitutes legitimate comment from a separate publication, and that Vrye Weekblad was entitled to reflect it as part of wider public discussion.

Ruling

This aspect of the complaint is dismissed.

Complaint 8: Inaccurate reporting – the Arlan (section 18.3 & 18.4 of the complaint)

Arguments

84. The complainants say that Paramount is a technology partner in the company KPE, without a controlling interest, point out that it is based in Kazakhstan, not Russia, and that the Arlan is not the same as their own Marauder. They say the reports cited date from long before the war in Ukraine. KPE’s decision to supply a demonstration model to Russia was their own and does not implicate Paramount in arming Russia.
85. Du Preez says his articles at no point alleged that Paramount was arming Russia.  The accusation to this effect is a straw man for the complainants to knock down, he says.
86. The complainants do not return to this point in their rejoinder.

Discussion

87. Nothing in the second article goes beyond the description given by the complainants of Paramount’s relationship with KPE. The article talks of Paramount being a partner of KPE, while the complainants refer to a technology partnership.  There is no suggestion of a controlling interest.
88. These reports are provided as background, so the fact that they predate the Ukraine war is not relevant.
89. The article describes the Arlan as the local version of the Marauder.  The complainants say this is false, and instead describe it as having been localised.  These descriptions are not significantly different.
90. Overall, the second article describes various links and involvements. It does not suggest that Paramount is arming Russia in its conflict with Ukraine, as the complainants repeatedly say.

Ruling

91. This element of the complaint is dismissed.

Complaint 9: Inaccuracy: links to Russian companies (section 18.5 of the complaint)

Arguments

92. The complainants again argue that older material is irrelevant to the current conflict, and that some of the sources cited are unreliable.  They also say the article cites memorandums of understanding as if they represented finalised contracts to supply weapons. An example is the agreement involving the Russian firm Burevestnik, which never led to any actual business being conducted. The complainants also argue there was no collaboration with Russia in KPE’s work around the Barys 8, an armoured vehicle based on Paramount’s Mbombe 8.
93. Accordingly, they claim breach of clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.7 and 1.8 of the Press Code.
94. Du Preez’s response is to say that his reports did not claim that Paramount supplied Russia in the current conflict. He also says that the second article provided the complainant’s room to give their side of the story, and that some of the points raised necessitated a response from Vrye Weekblad.
95. The complainants do not return to this point in their rejoinder.

Discussion

96. The second article includes links to previously published articles and reports in various publications that illustrate historic linkages by Paramount to Russia, many via Kazakhstan. The fact that they predate the present conflict does not make them irrelevant.  Also, the article does not claim that Paramount is arming Russia.
97. The question of Russia’s possible involvement in KPE’s work on the Barys 8 is difficult to resolve with the information at my disposal.  The second article has two sources referring to collaboration with Russia around the vehicle. One is the blog which the complainants dismiss as having no credibility, the second is a separate website, armyrecognition.com, though this is itself based on a report in another publication.  The complainants have not cast similar doubts on the second source.  However, they do roundly deny any collaboration.
98. Though publication of the claim is justified, Paramount’s denial deserves to be reflected.

Ruling

99. This element of the complaint is dismissed, though Vrye Weekblad should report the company’s denial of collaboration with Russia around the Barys 8.

Complaint 10: Inaccurate reporting: Saudi subsidiary (section 18.6 of the complaint)

Arguments

100. The complainants say their subsidiary in Saudi Arabia only services the Russian Mi-type helicopters purchased years ago by African countries, it does not sell them.
101. As a result, they claim breach of clauses 1.1, 12 and 1.8 of the Press Code.
102. Du Preez does not directly address this point.
103. The complainants do not return to the point in their rejoinder.

Discussion

104. I accept the complainants’ version. The article cited in Vrye Weekblad’s second article talks of selling “helicopter solutions” (my emphasis), rather than sales of complete aircraft.  There is particular emphasis on a new kind of interchangeable composite rotary wing blades.
105. Though not material to the overall thrust of the article, the mistake should be corrected.

Ruling

106. This aspect of the complaint is upheld.

Complaint 11: Inaccuracy: Arms for Saudi Arabia (section 18.7 of the complaint)

Arguments

107. The complainants say that the agreement referred to produce Paramount’s armoured vehicle, the Mbombe, in Saudi Arabia together with local companies is only an expression of intent, and has not been acted upon. They link this to the statement in the first article which says they sell arms to Saudi Arabia and various African state,
108. Accordingly, they claim breach of clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.7 and 1.8 of the Press Code.
109. Du Preez accepts that the agreement was an expression of intent, but quotes the article he references (in defenceweb.co.za) as reflecting a clear intention to supply the Saudi armed forces. He says he does not understand why the statement should be controversial, and points out that the second article included the company’s statement that it has never supplied Saudi Arabia.

Discussion

110. The complainants do not dispute the defenceweb article from November 2022. Their argument rests on the point that no action has been taken, leaving open the possibility that it will do so in the future, and that sales contracts may be concluded between the government and local partners. The agreement was concluded comparatively recently, after all.
111. The verb used in the first article is “sells”.  Though perhaps a little loose in its use of the present tense, it points to Paramount’s involvement in Saudi Arabia.  Reporting needs to be accurate, but cannot be held hostage to labyrinthine arrangements that may simply obscure the nature of relationships, particularly in an industry of such importance as armaments.

Ruling

112. This aspect of the complaint is dismissed.   

Complaint 12: Inaccurate reporting: Siberian gold mine (section 18.8 of the complaint)

Arguments

113. The complainants say TransAfrica Capital, Ichikowitz’s firm, has a very small share in the gold mine, that the Russian government has no part in the venture, neither do any shareholders have links to the government and that the mine is not yet operational. Therefore there can be no basis for saying that the mine helps fund the Russian war in the Ukraine, they argue.
114. Du Preez says his report did not specify that there was a large stake in the mine. He also cites a report from Tass news agency highlighting inflows of capital for the development of the mine, which will also support job creation, infrastructure development and improve Russia’s tax revenues.
115. The complainants say that these estimated benefits are projections, and do not currently reflect anything that could be construed as funding of the Ukraine war.

Discussion

116. The size of interest in the mine is not material, as the original article makes no reference to it.
117. Once again, we are left with a question of timing.  Though it is surprising that an initiative announced in 2017 is still not out of the starting blocks, I accept the complainants’ statement that the mine is not yet active.  Though Vrye Weekblad produces information of significant financial inflows to develop the project, the accusation (by unnamed critics of Putin) that the mine is helping to fund the war is, at least overstated. It could be argued that any benefit to the Russian state benefits the war effort, but the phrase “helps fund the war” goes a step further.
118. However, the statement is ascribed to critics, though unnamed.  It is not a statement of fact in the publication’s own voice.

Ruling

119. This aspect of the complaint is dismissed.

Complaint 13: Inaccuracy – Zuma recommended involvement (section 18.9 of the complaint)

Arguments

120. The complainants say that it was not Zuma who recommended Ichikowitz for a shareholding, but the SA government.
121. Accordingly, they allege breaches of clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.8 of the Press Code.
122. Vrye Weekblad does not respond to this point.
123. The complainants’ rejoinder also does not return to this point.

Discussion

124.  The distinction between Zuma and the government he led at the time is a very fine one. It does not warrant finding the publication guilty of inaccuracy.

Ruling

125. This aspect of the complaint is dismissed.

Complaint 14: Failure to request comment (throughout the complaint)

Arguments

126. On every point, the complainants say that the article breached clause 1.8 of the Press Code in that they were not asked for comment.  The point is also raised prominently at the start and at the end of the letter of complaint.
127. Du Preez argues first that as his article was a piece of commentary, the Press Code’s requirement to seek comment does not apply. The material used was all in the public domain already, and he simply drew it together. He expected a response. This was published in full, but it necessitated a further response which he provided through, again, publicly available material.
128. In addition, he argues he had the reasonable fear that Paramount as a powerful company, would seek to frustrate publication if warned by being asked to comment. 
129. In their rejoinder, the complainants say that the Press Code does not make the duty to request comment optional. Only if there is an “imminent and provable danger of the subject using lawfare to suppress publication” can an exception be made.

Discussion

130. Both articles are clearly identifiable as commentary, as Du Preez says and the complainants acknowledge.  Du Preez also describes them as essays on current affairs.  In any event, they are not ordinary reportage.
131. The distinction between the two is not always neat, and I agree with the position recently taken in a case before the Press Ombud, and confirmed on appeal, that fact and opinion are to be found on a continuum, and that a line is not easy to draw. (See Patriotic Alliance vs News24).
132. The need to request comment from the subject of an article is strongly linked to this distinction: the subject of reportage has the right to be heard, the subject of comment’s rights are less strong. 
133. It should be noted though that the right, even with regard to reportage, is not absolute.  Clause 1.8 of the Press Code says comment should be sought before publication “if practicable”, adding important exceptions “when (the publication) might be prevented from reporting, or evidence destroyed, or witnesses intimidated”.
134. The rulings in the Patriotic Alliance vs News 24 case recently reinforced another important point: that statements of fact may be embedded in a comment piece.
135. In my view, an article of comment needs to be treated as a whole, without excessive focus on individual statements. Nevertheless, the obligation on a writer to make it clear what they claim as fact, and what is their opinion. Much rests on formulations used: if it appears that a statement of fact is made, the writer is best advised to ensure it will stand scrutiny as such.
136. Where commentary deals in matters that are already part of the public discussion – notably with regard to political matters – there is no legitimate claim to being heard before publication, as noted in the December 2021 decision in the matter DA & John Steenhuisen vs EWN.
137. On the other hand, where commentary relies extensively on allegations that are new and potentially controversial, seeking a response may be appropriate. 
138. Where does that leave us with regard to the matter at hand?
139. With regard to the first article, Du Preez argues that he drew on information already in the public domain, and merely joined the dots. However, the central claim that two businesspeople linked to Russia initiated the peace mission was new, and was presented as a statement of fact.  Reporting previous to the Vrye Weekblad article highlighted their involvement, but did not claim that they orchestrated the initiative.  The Globe and Mail only talked about Ichikowitz having a key backroom role.
140. In addition, several elements in the article were drawn from specialist news sources, and were new in the wider public domain. 
141.  On this basis, the newspaper should have requested comment from the complainants.
142. However, this is not the end of the story. Du Preez advances two further defences. First, he says he feared that attempts would be made to prevent publication. Second, he points to the fact that the complainants’ views were fully carried in the second article.
143. It is not possible to assess with any certainty whether his fears in regard to the prevention of publication were reasonable or not, despite the complainant’s rather angry denials. We must accept that he held them.
144. More important, though, is the fact that Vrye Weekblad gave the complainants considerable space in the second article. Though the publication also included information to contradict the complainant’s rebuttal, that rebuttal was presented at length and verbatim. Readers would be able to weigh the complainants’ version against the version presented by Vrye Weekblad. 
145. The complainants frequently argue that what they view as incorrect information would have been corrected if they had been asked for comment. This misunderstands the right to reply: the complainants’ version would not necessarily have superseded the view taken by the publication. Rather, it would enable readers to see both views.

Ruling

146. This element of the complaint is dismissed.

Rulings

Accordingly, I find that:

147. Vrye Weekblad breached clause 1.3 of the Press Code, by stating as fact that the complainants are confidants of Russian President Vladimi Putin.
     1. As this is a level 2 breach, the publication must publish an apology and correction.
148. Vrye Weekblad breached clause 1.1 of the Press Code in reporting that Ichikowitz’s parents emigrated to South Africa instead of his grandparents; and by linking the Paramount Group to the unrelated Paramount Transport company.
     1. As these are level 1 breaches, the publication should correct the error.
149. Vrye Weekblad breached clause 1.3 of the Press Code, by reporting that Paramount specialises in imports and exports to Russia.
     1. As this is a level 2 breach, the publication should apologise and correct the error.
150. Vrye Weekblad breached clause 1.1 of the Press Code by reporting that Paramount’s Saudi subsidiaries sells helicopters, rather than parts and servicing.
     1. As this is a level 1 breach, the publication should correct the error.
151. Vrye Weekblad should also reflect Paramount’s denial that they collaborated with Russia on the Barys 8 vehicle.
152. Vrye Weekblad is directed to

152.1 Publish an apology and correction for the relevant aspects of the report, as indicated above.

152.2 The note should appear on Vrye Weekblad’s website, at the bottom of the first report.  Between the headline and the start of the report, a line should be published saying: “Apology and correction: see bottom of article”.

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

152.4 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.

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

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

Appeal

154. 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 

 

 

Link to the apology

Corrections, retractions and apology to Ivor Ichikowitz and Paramount Group (vryeweekblad.com)