a self-regulatory framework for the media in Namibia which includes a Media Ombudsman whose task it is to deal with complaints by the public about media reporting. [71] The second defendant described the ethos of the newspaper as being one in which much emphasis is placed on a code of journalistic ethics. She described the newspaper as a “serious” one (as opposed to a tabloid newspaper) that adheres very stringently to the Namibian Constitution and that strives to find a balance between the rights to freedom of speech and the press and the rights of the individual to privacy. During her time as editor the newspaper was oriented toward upholding human rights; speaking out on behalf of the public where it was in the public interest; being a watchdog against corruption; and striving in its reporting to be fair and balanced at all times. She described the need to report the truth, “as near as we can get to it,” as “absolutely critical”. [72] The second defendant further elaborated by stating that the newspaper involved itself in investigative journalism as part of its role as a watchdog over public resources and of power by, inter alia, government and parastatals. She emphasized the critical part played by the media in a developing democracy such as Namibia where there is still a large number of people unsure about their rights and responsibilities under the Constitution and where a vibrant civil society is lacking. [73] She set out the general manner in which the newspaper’s team of journalists and editorial staff would work and interact on the various stories and articles considered for publication. She stated that fair and balanced reporting requires, inter alia, that “single source stories” are discouraged, but that it is generally required of the reporter to approach multiple sources to ensure the accuracy of the story. Furthermore, in the case of an investigative story, the person who is at the centre of the story and specifically if the story is negative about this person, should be approached for comment and further input. She emphasized the importance that a reporter should do all the groundwork to establish the truth as far as possible before that person is confronted.
[354] The plaintiff’s claim is for damages in the amount of N$500 000. Mr Namandje stood by the plaintiff’s heads of argument on quantum. Therein he persisted that this amount is fair and reasonable and should be awarded. He submitted that it is aggravating that the defendants did not apologize or publish a retraction, although they came to know one day after the publication that the article contained several inaccuracies. [355] I do not think that the explanation given by the plaintiff to the third defendant after publication was such that it was reasonable to expect a wholesale apology or retraction of all the allegations made in the article merely on the basis of his explanation. I think it would have been reasonable for the defendants to first follow up certain aspects of his version. However, I do think that in those respects in which he provided them with documentary proof, rectification could have been made, e.g. on the issue of Ms Mndawe’s SA licence and the reasons for the withdrawal of the validation as set out in Exh “A”. I also think that it would have been reasonable to at least publish his version. I bear these factors in mind in favour of the plaintiff’s claim. [356] The plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the defendants’ counsel made unfounded allegations during cross-examination of the plaintiff that the latter cut corners in relation to various matters in the context of his work or profession, while it was the defendants’ witness, Mr van Niekerk, who admitted that he had cut corners in certain aspects of his work. Counsel further submitted that this conduct constitutes an aggravating feature. I do not agree with this submission. Witnesses sometimes have to withstand robust cross-examination while the cross-examiner’s suggestions do not always sit well with them. The suggestions of cutting corners in this case were within permissible limits in the context in which they were made and the plaintiff had ample opportunity to deny them, which he did. I also do not think it is appropriate to place Mr van Niekerk’s frank (and appropriate) admission (which, as I have indicated before, reflects positively upon his credibility) into the scale when considering the context in which it was made and when weighing the factors relevant to the determination of the amount of