Ombudsman sides with press on DJ Black Coffee's hot groupie loving saga

The house music DJ brought several complaints to the Press Ombudsman against Drum magazine and Sunday World, alleging they had purposefully tried to defame him by using misleading headlines and reporting inaccuracies.

Black Coffee, real name Nkosinathi Maphumulo was so peeved at the reports contained in the two publications that he brought forth a litany of complaints to the Press Ombudsman.

According to The Press Council, The 38-year-old producer and record label owner took issue with Drum magazine's article titled, Coffee gets more sugar? – Months after an alleged affair, a trail of messages and a recording indicate DJ Black Coffee has strayed again.

The report was published in May this year, and detailed Coffee's intimate relationship with a woman who claimed they slept together. Drum had Facebook messages, comments from four sources and sound recordings to back up their article.

Despite this, Coffee claimed the article infringed on his right to privacy and dignity; it inaccurately and unfairly tainted him as an adulterer who used people for sex; it was dependent on a single source, rumours or repetitions, which misled the public; and the article defamed him.

The Ombudsman ruled that while Coffee's privacy was infringed upon, it was done so justifiably as he is a public figure, a philanthropist and it was therefore it was in the public's interest to know about his private life. The Ombudsman added that the sources were credible and the story could be substantiated.

Meanwhile, a similar ruling was found in Sunday World's case. The weekly ran with a story:  Love on the rocks – Black Coffee fights to save unhappy home in which it said Coffee had been attending marriage counseling sessions with his wife, Starbiz host, Mbali. This after it was suggested he had been cheating on his spouse.

Coffee objected to the headline, story and all it's contents saying they were false, misleading and tainted his image as a business man. The Ombudsman ruled in Sunday World's favour, stating the publication had not acted unnecessarily by publishing the article and that the newspaper operated within the confines of the Press Code.