When exactly is the demand for a correction and apology justified?

This story has significance for readers across Kenya and beyond.

Ms Lea Kalondu Ngutu, the Chief for Mitaboni, has demanded a correction and apology from the Nation Media Group over a story titled: “Chief loses her job over low KCSE grade”. The story, published in the Daily Nation and on Nation.Africa, was based on Employment and Labour Court proceedings in Machakos, following an application by two residents of the location.

The court nullified Ms Ngutu’s appointment on grounds that she did not meet the minimum academic qualifications required for the position. Ms Ngutu scored a D- in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education examination, falling short of the minimum grade of C stipulated under the Revised Scheme of Service for National Government Administrative Officers.

Mr Stephen Nzomo Mutua and Mr Anthony Ndonye Mutiso had challenged the recruitment process conducted by the Ministry of Interior and the Public Service Commission, arguing that candidates who met the required academic qualifications had failed to secure the job.

In her defence, Ms Ngutu argued that academic qualifications should not be the sole measure of merit for public office. She told the court that her experience as an assistant chief and her understanding of local administrative challenges made her suitable for the position. Public appointments should take into account competence, experienceand practical ability rather than relying exclusively on examination grades, she argued.

The court, however, ruled that academic qualifications were a key component of merit in public service appointments and that mandatory requirements could not be waived.

In the judgment, the court noted that the matter had, in fact, been overtaken by events, as the recruitment process had been nullified and a different candidate recommended for the position. The Public Service Commission had informed the court that it had already directed the cancellation of the appointment and later conducted a fresh merit-based review of the recruitment process.

However, Ms Ngutu maintains she is still in office: “I am an employee of the Ministry of Interior and have not received any letter from my employer revoking my appointment.” She asks: “On what basis, then, did the editor publish that I have lost my job?”

Ms Ngutu seems to be taking issue with the headline, which, read in isolation, communicates the message that she has been relieved of her duties as a chief. The question that her demand for a correction and apology raises is: At what point is one considered to have lost her or his job? In our view, it should be when the employer formally dismisses the person.

Ms Ngutu’s employer is the Ministry of Interior. Has the ministry terminated its contract with the chief? Not according to Ms Ngutu, who continues to perform the duties of a chief. The reasons for her continued stay in office are between her and her employer.

There are two opposing facts here: The first is that the court has nullified Ms Ngutu’s appointment. The second is that Ms Ngutu has not lost her job. Therefore, while the text of the story, which states that the court has nullified the recruitment, is factual, the headline is inaccurate and misleading.

Is Ms Ngutu’s demand for a correction and apology justified?

Corrections and apologies are covered under Part III of the Nation Media Group’s Editorial Policy Guidelines and Objectives, which outline the ethics and conduct of journalists.

The policy states: “Whenever it is recognised that an inaccurate, misleading or distorted report has been published, it should be corrected promptly. Corrections should report the correct information and not restate the error except when clarity demands. Ideally, corrections should be made in a regular format and similar position as promptly as possible after the error has been detected.”

The Public Editor holds the view that a correction of the headline should be made to set the record straight. As for an apology, the Editorial Policy states that “Corrections do not normally require an apology and apologies should normally be made on the basis of legal advice.”

However, in the public interest, the reporter should follow up with the Ministry of Interior and tell readers why the chief is still in office despite the court order. He should also take a broader look at the application of the Revised Scheme of Service for National Government Administrative Officers across the country.

Reporting originally appeared via Nation Africa. Read the full source for additional context.