The South African press ombudsman has dismissed a complaint lodged by Vivian Reddy regarding an article by the Mail & Guardian (M&G) alleging his Edison company had benefited from a fixed tender.
HumanIPO reported in January Mmusi Maimane, the Democratic Alliance (DA) Johannesburg caucus leader, called for an investigation into the ZAR1.25 billion (US$108.3 million) smart meter tender, which was allegedly tailored to suit Reddy’s Edison corporation.
The ombudsman’s ruling was based on written submissions by both the M&G’s amaBhungane – a centre for investigative journalism – and Reddy.
“Vivian Reddy and the company in which he has an interest, Edison Power Gauteng, complain about a front page story on January 18 2013 in the Mail & Guardian newspaper… Evidence suggests a smart-meter tender was fixed to benefit Vivian Reddy’s firm,” the M&G quoted Johan Retief, press ombudsman at Print Media South Africa, as saying in his recent ruling.
The ombudsman’s statement outlined the complaints made by the company, which include the publication apparently creating an impression the Edison company was corrupt. The company argued using the words “gift” and “present” was “injurious” to the company.
Reddy went on to say the article’s sub-headline, which read “Evidence suggests that a hotly contested smart electricity meter tender, to the value of R1.25-billion, was fixed to benefit Vivian Reddy’s firm”, was misleading.
Reddy complained about the photograph used and its caption, saying they were biased and suggested nepotism.
The ombudsman outlined why he did not agree with Reddy’s case. “After careful study of the story, and of the arguments on both sides, I have to agree with the newspaper…
“Reddy does not dispute a single fact in the story itself – he merely complains in general that the article implied that he was corrupt.
“While the story certainly stated that the tender was fixed, and that it was manipulated to favour Reddy (providing some possible evidence to this effect), the journalists on no account put the blame on Reddy for that situation – instead, they specifically stated that there was no evidence suggesting foul play on Reddy’s or Edison’s part.
“There indeed may have been several other explanations for the awarding of the tender.”
The ombudsman’s full ruling can be read here.
