We note that after the Press Ombudsman conveyed my complaint to the Mail & Guardian, the M&G afforded me an opportunity to answer an article in the M&G of
April 26 to May 3 2001 under the heading: “Bogoshi still not charged after 10-
year fraud investigation”.
Before I lodged my complaint with the Press Ombudsman, I obtained the opinion of senior sounsel. His opinion is, and I agree, that the M&G and its reporter had
contravened the Press Code in the following respects.
(1) The article errs grossly in stating that the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA)
has already decided that the articles by City Press on me, a number of years
ago, were reasonably investigated. The SCA only held that it would be a defence
for the press to prove absence of negligence if it has been found to err unreasonably. The issue as to City Press’s absence of negligence has still to be proved by City Press in the civil trial in the Witwatersrand Local Division,
which has not commenced. The article accordingly upgraded mere allegation to
reasonable allegation, which placed an unjustifiable slur on my name.
(2) When the article further states that I am “still practising”, it unfairly
implies that in spite of the “reasonably investigation” by City Press, I am “still” in practice. In this fashion a blatant error of the reporter as to “reasonableness” of the investigation by City Press is unjustifiably employed to question my fitness to “still” practice.
(3) The article does not, in terms of the Press Code, take note of all the available facts by simply stating that the Directorate of Public Prosecutions is “unaware of Mr Bogoshi’s whereabouts”. The implication is that I am possibly
evading the law or even a fugitive from justice! I practise in Randburg from a
fixed address with full staff and I am a member of the Law Society. The reporter
was clearly in contact with the Law Society, and the question is why my address
was not asked from the Law Society? This lamentable omission contributed to the
unjustifiable slur on my name.
(4) The reporter should, according to the Press Code, also have sought my views
on the matter. The article was seriously critical of me, and my view should,
accordingly, have been published. I could,for example, have informed the journalist on the correct deduction to be made from the SCA case and that my
record is professionally and otherwise clean. I understand that an annotation to this response would read that the reporter had attempted to reach me. If this is true, then according to the Press Code, the reporter should have stated the attempted contact in the article!
(5) I am a strong supporter of press freedom, but the unjustifiable attack on me in the said article has, at least insofar as the M&G is concerned, shocked my
confidence considerably. A reporter should not quote from a judgement of our
highest court with apparent expertise, and then in an amateur fashion understand
its main point incorrectly and convey that to the public.