Jumuna and The Irish Times

Complaint

Mr Narantuk Jumuna, also known as Mr Shan Mohangi, complained that an article published in The Irish Times on 25 March 2009 breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distringuishing Fact and Comment), Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty) and Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Code of Practice for Newspaper and Periodicals. Mr Jumuna complained that a statement in the article that he had changed his name to Narantuk Jumuna following his deportation from Ireland was untrue, and that while the article referred to his candidacy for a forthcoming general election, he was not aware that he had been nominated as a candidate. He also complained that the article was unfair and unbalanced because the reporter did not contact him for comment.

The newspaper stated that the article was factually based and that its reporter in South Africa endeavoured to speak to Mr Jumuna three times by telephone. It offered to publish a clarification in relation to the complainant’s use of his name, or a letter from the complainant explaining his side of the story. The complainant submitted a long and detailed letter for publication which, for legal reasons, could not be published by the newspaper. The newspaper repeated its offer to publish a clarification in relation to the complainant’s use of his name, which the complainant turned down.

Decision

It is not possible for the Press Ombudsman to make a finding on the complainant’s use of his name or names over a period of several decades, or to establish whether or not the complainant was aware that he had been nominated as an election candidate. While Mr Jumuna claimed that the article was unfair and unbalanced because the reporter did not contact him for comment, the Press Ombudsman accepts that its reporter had made reasonable attempts to do so.

While the complainant’s draft letter to the editor contained legal impediments to its publication, it was open to him to re-word the letter in advance of publication but he chose not to do so. He also refused the newspaper’s renewed offer to publish a clarification. The Press Ombudsman’s decision is that in these circumstances the newspaper’s offer to publish a clarification or a letter from the complainant constituted an offer of sufficient remedial action on its part to resolve the complaint.

4 September 2009