Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

NYCO vs Daily Dispatch

, ,

Complaint 000508

Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud

Date of publication:

22 January 2026

Headline of publication:

“Natural springs bring water to villages in Ngcobo”

Link: https://www.dailydispatch.co.za/news/2026-01-22-natural-springs-bring-water-to-villages-in-ngcobo/#google_vignette

Author: Sikho Ntshabane

Particulars

  1. The Ngcobo Yethu Civic Organisation (NYCO) was unhappy with the above article, chiefly on the grounds that it uncritically reflects inaccurate statements by the municipality, and they contacted the newspaper with a request for rectification.
  2. The NYCO, through its interim convenor, Lonwabo Delihlazo, was not satisfied with the newspaper’s response and lodged a formal complaint with the Press Council of SA on 13 February.
  3. After being contacted by the Public Advocate (PA), Thabo Leshilo, the Daily Dispatch undertook to conduct a follow-up investigation, as set out in their response to the complaint, filed by their internal ombud, Adrienne Carlisle, on March 23.
  4. A second article was published on March 24, headlined Some residents still without tap water in tale of two villages. (https://www.dailydispatch.co.za/news/2026-03-24-some-residents-still-without-tap-water-in-tale-of-two-villages/)
  5. The NYCO was dissatisfied with the follow-up and persisted in the complaint.
  6. A rejoinder from the complainant was filed on 24 March.
  7. An exchange of emails between the parties is also relevant, as the PA attempted to find an amicable resolution.
  8. I take into account the various submissions filed in this matter.

The article

  1. The article reports that hundreds of residents of two villages, Mnyolo and Mkhonkotho in Ngcobo, have received fresh drinking water after the Chris Hani District Municipality connected communal taps to natural springs. The municipal spokesperson, Thobeka Mqamelo, is quoted extensively to this effect, explaining how the action is part of a wider project to improve water supply by linking to natural springs. She is the only source quoted in the article.
  2. The follow-up article reports that three taps were installed, benefiting one village but not the other that the municipality claimed was involved. Hundreds of villagers are still having to rely on water drawn from the river, the report says. Several villagers are quoted as explaining how they themselves contributed by, for instance, digging trenches and that they are still waiting for the installation of further taps.  A spokesperson for the district municipality is quoted as saying that further taps will be installed as material becomes available. He describes the project as a joint effort between a municipal team and community volunteers.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is not made in terms of specific clauses of the Press Code. However, the complaint is that the newspaper published unverified information (which would breach clauses 1.1 and 1.7), did not afford residents a chance to present their perspective (clause 1.7) and denied the NYCO a chance to respond (clause 1.8). Overall, the article is harmful by presenting a misleading narrative of service delivery in a rural area.

Complaint: Unverified reporting – residents not given a chance to respond

Arguments

  1. The complaint argued briefly that the initial article simply reflected the municipality’s view without checking with residents.
  2. In their response, the Dispatch provided some background to the reporting and pointed to the difficulty of checking all claims made by official sources, particularly in more remote areas. The newspaper said that after the communication from the NYCO, they spoke to a new municipal spokesperson who provided some photographs to show that the project had led to improvements. Due to resource constraints, a physical visit to the villages could not be undertaken, the matter was placed on the back burner and no report was published.
  3. In the light of the complaint, however, the newspaper undertook to visit the villages and establish whether three taps are functional and providing spring water to residents. They acknowledged the importance of checking claims of service delivery, or non-delivery, particularly as the country heads towards the municipal elections.
  4. A day later, as mentioned above, the second article was published.
  5. The NYCO’s rejoinder argued that the follow-up article is still inadequate in that the taps in question were not installed by the municipality but by the residents themselves.
  6. In the email exchange between the parties, the Dispatch argued that the second article reflected residents’ statements that they were responsible for doing much of the work and finding material for the tap installation. The newspaper said this should satisfy the NYCO complaint. They could not reasonably be expected to simply reflect the organisation’s viewpoint, just as they should not simply reflect the claims of the municipality. In addition, the Dispatch said a failure to reflect the municipality’s position could lead to a complaint from the other side.

Discussion

  1. The initial complaint was focused on an alleged failure by the newspapers to reflect the views of residents. And indeed, the first article can be faulted for simply reflecting official claims of service delivery.
  2. However, the second article gives extensive attention to the views of residents. It is angled on the fact that though three taps have indeed been installed, as claimed, some villages are still without access to taps and residents are forced to draw water directly from the river.
  3. In response, the NYCO no longer complained about the lack of voice given to villagers but turned to who should claim credit for having installed the taps. The installation was done by the residents, not the municipality, the organisation said. This was not a point made in the original complaint.
  4. In fact, the report reflects community members’ extensive role in securing improved water supply, as well as their frustrations with the municipality’s role. They point to delays in the installation of pipes by municipal teams after they themselves dug the necessary trenches. The municipality acknowledges the role played by community members and provides some context to the project.
  5. Overall, the follow-up article includes a detailed account of the situation as experienced by residents, which was the core of the initial complaint, and reflects the substantial contribution of residents themselves.
  6. It is not the newspaper’s obligation to reflect the situation in exactly the way in which the NYCO sees it, which seems to be that the municipality played no role at all. If the organisation has direct, concrete evidence to show that the municipality had no involvement, they should present it.
  7. The Dispatch is also right to argue that they have an obligation to reflect the municipality’s view.
  8. Though the first article can be faulted for relying only on official claims, the second provided sufficient remedy.

Finding

  1. I find that the Dispatch’s reporting is not in breach of clause 1.1 or 1.7 by reporting unverified claims or failing to represent residents’ views.

Complaint: Right of reply

Arguments

  1. The original complaint is that the NYCO was not afforded a right of reply. However, no further details are given.
  2. The response from the Dispatch does not deal with the complaint, focusing on the question of reflecting residents’ views.
  3. The complainant does not return to the matter either.

Discussion

  1. It is difficult to evaluate the complaint on the basis of so little detail. It is true that neither article quotes the NYCO on the matter, though the second says the visit to the villages was undertaken in response to a complaint from the organisation.
  2. However, the inclusion of the voices of residents themselves meets the need for balance.

Finding

  1. I find that the Dispatch’s reporting did not breach Clause 1.8 by failing to offer the complainant an opportunity to put forward their version of events.

Finding

  1. The complaint that the article is in breach of the Press Code is dismissed for the reasons outlined above.

Appeal

  1. 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 Khanyim@presscouncilsa.org.za

Ruling by
Franz Krüger, Deputy Press Ombud
29 April 2026

 

Related Posts