Sir Nige vs TechnoMag, TechZim and Creative Loop March 2017

VMCZ Media Complaints Committee (MCC) received a complaint from Nigel Mugamu, Chief Story Teller at 263 Chat over articles published by Creative Loop, TechZim and TechnoMag on 15 March 2017 headlined, “Massive Looting at Hypercube Hub: Report” and a Facebook post on the same matter.

  • The complainant is aggrieved, and says that while his company 263 Chat used to rent space at the Hypercube Tech Hub (which he is a founding member of,), he did not use the space for free as suggested in the article in question.
  • He also says that the article was published without seeking a comment from him or verifying allegations from the quoted “audit report”.
  • The complainant is concerned that the article is likely to have a negative impact on his reputation and company

The complainant then indicated he would pursue a legal route against TechnoMag and Creative Loop. A hearing was held with TechZim where the latter agreed to give the complainant an opportunity to give his side of the story through a right of reply.

 

Status: Partially Resolved

The complaint against TechZim was adjudicated by the Media Complaints Committee with representation from both parties.

The complainant in his submissions informed the MCC that he felt aggrieved by publication of the story before being given an opportunity to give his side of the story. He argued that the article contained a number of inaccuracies and misleading allegations. The complainant also argued that TechZim had a responsibility to verify the legitimacy and authenticity of the “audit report” in terms of its origination and claims contained therein as it was not produced by an accounting firm but possibly a disgruntled Hub ex-employee. The complainant was therefore seeking an opportunity to give his side of the story to correct misrepresentations arising from the ‘offending’ article.

TechZim in response acknowledged that while they had not given the complainant an opportunity for right of reply, they felt this was not necessary at the point of publication as they assumed the information was credible and already publicly available and published online as the “audit report” had been uploaded online for sometime.

Both parties agreed that the complainant would be given an opportunity to air his side of the story and address inaccuracies and any misconceptions arising from the first article. The complainant is yet to furnish TechZim with his response.

The complainant indicated that he would proceed by way of litigation against TechnoMag and Creative Loop.