Mashaba vs Sunday World

Complaint 32167                                                                                      

Ruling by the Press Ombud

Date of article:                    2 February 2025

Headline of publication:   “Former Bafana Bafana coach recuperating in hospital”

Author:                                  No byline

1. An article about the hospitalisation of Mr Ephraim “Shakes” Mashaba forms the subject of the complaint.
2. Mr Sithembele Khala, a spokesperson for the Mashaba family, lodged the complaint and made the necessary submissions.
3. Sunday World responded through written submissions from its acting editor, Mr Ngwako Malatji.

Background

4. Mashaba (74) is a widely-known former soccer player and coach. One of the nurses quoted the article in question referred to him as a “national treasure” and “legend”.
5. He was admitted to the Helen Joseph hospital in Johannesburg earlier this year to receive urological treatment. The hospital is a state facility.
6. Sunday World reported on Mashaba’s hospitalisation, the fact that he was admitted to the high care section of that hospital, and how hospital staff and Mashaba’s wife were apparently scurrying to make sure he receives the best treatment. According to the report, Mashaba received treatment and “seemed a lot better” afterwards.

Complaint

7. Khala’s complaint centred around two sentences in the article, being the following:

“The well travelled coach found himself in a sticky situation in a public hospital as he could not afford private health care due to financial constraints;” and

“…’Nurses and medical doctors made sure that they leave everything to attend to him’, said a nurse at the hospital.”

8. Khala says “nobody thought it necessary to speak to (Mashaba) and hear his side of the story”. “An unfortunate impression created is that he was in a public hospital because he could not afford private health care”.
9. Secondly, Khala says the impression is created that Mashaba “was given preferential treatment at the expense of the other patients as the doctors and the nursing staff had to leave the other patients and went to attend to him, according to the article”.
10. The complaint therefore invokes two sections of the Press Code, being the requirements around pre-publication comment (clause 1.8) and distortion or misrepresentations of fact (clause 1.2.)

Sunday World’s response

11. The publication denies any breach of the Press Code.
12. In exchanging arguments, an unusual dispute arose – whether Sunday World spoke to Mashaba or not.
13. Malatji says Sunday World’s reporter spoke to Mashaba “anonymously” prior to publication.
14. In response, Khala submitted a letter – apparently in Mashaba’s handwriting –containing the following words: “I emphatically deny that I ever met and spoke to a journalist from this newspaper or any other newspaper for that matter.”
15. Sunday World is adamant that it did. Malatji gave a detailed account of how one of the reporters, Bongani Mdakane, visited Helen Joseph hospital on assignment for another story and happened to find out about Mashaba’s hospitalisation. The reporter provides minute detail of his alleged interaction with Mashaba and what transpired on that Saturday afternoon. It is not necessary to repeat all the details in this ruling.
16. Said Malatji: “We are willing to subject ourselves (the reporter) to the scrutiny of cellphone records, video footage and other methods that can establish that Mr Mdakane was indeed in the hospital and its vicinity on the day and hours concerned.”
17. I have no reason before me to disbelieve either the publication or Khala/Mashaba, which leaves me unable to pronounce on this aspect. As was noted in Nage vs Sunday Times (2023):

“The mechanism provided by the Office of the Press Ombud to adjudicate complaints has constraints to resolve disputes of fact. The Ombud is not a court of law, has no independent investigative mandate or powers, nor the ability to subpoena witnesses.”

18. There are numerous possible explanations for the different stances of the parties – none of which can be definitively decided by simply hearing the mutually destructive versions of the parties.
19. However, as was held in Nage, this investigative limitation of the Press Ombud mechanism is by design and should not in itself be a bar to adjudicating whether a subscriber publication breached the Press Code or not. In my view, the complaint can be considered without a finding on whether the reporter spoke to Mashaba or not.

Analysis

Pre-publication comment

20. Clause 1.8. of the Press Code reads:

“(The media shall) seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication, except when they might be prevented from reporting, or evidence destroyed, or sources intimidated. Such a subject should be afforded reasonable time to respond; if unable to obtain comment, this shall be stated.”

21. Clause 1.8. is engaged only if the individual is subjected to “critical reportage”. It is not a requirement of the Press Code to obtain the views of every person mentioned or reported on in an article.
22. In Siyabonga Gama vs Sunday Times, this Office held the pre-publication comment requirement of clause 1.8. is aimed at protecting the reputation of a subject of critical reportage.
23. Reportage is therefore “critical” of a subject if it affects the reputation of the person.
24. It is also established practice for this Office to apply the objective “reasonable reader” to establish whether certain reportage affected the reputation of the subject of reportage. The ordinary reader is a rational person without prejudices inconsistent with constitutional values.
25. Importantly, the ordinary reader is not personally involved in the matter, hence the description of an “objective test”. The question is not how the publication views the reportage or Mashaba views it, but how a dispassionate reader who happened to read the article would interpret it.
26. The question is therefore if an ordinary reader would potentially think less of Mashaba after reading a) that he was admitted to a public hospital, b) of his admission to a public hospital as he “could not afford private healthcare”, and c) that “nurses and medical doctors made sure that they leave everything to attend to him”.
27. In my view, the answer is in the negative.
28. In a country where the vast majority of residents utilise public healthcare for various reasons, no ordinary reader would think less of someone who uses public healthcare.
29. Khala emphasised that there is a difference between stating someone was admitted to a public hospital and saying someone was admitted to a public hospital because he could not afford private healthcare. He is correct.
30. However, I have difficulty accepting that an ordinary reader would think less of Mashaba on that basis or that Mashaba’s dignity is infringed through the statement.
31. I do not invalidate or minimise the sentiments expressed by the Mashaba family. The reportage clearly affected Mashaba’s pride. The test is, however, objective and not based on how any of the parties involved interpret it.
32. For those reasons, Mashaba was not the subject of critical reportage as defined in the Press Code and clause 1.8. did not require the publication to seek pre-publication comment.

Distortion

33. Clause 1.2. requires the media not to distort or misrepresent facts or to report in an unbalanced manner.
34. This is essentially what Khala alleges when he says the article left an incorrect impression that Mashaba was “given preferential treatment at the expense of the other patients”.
35. I disagree that this is the impression created. A reading of the entire article shows only concern for a well-respected and revered public figure.
36. An ordinary reader is not suspicious and anxiously looking to read between the lines for a subtext.
37. The first statement being challenged, reads:

“Insiders at Helen Joseph told Sunday World that his wife made plans for the 74-year old to be admitted to the high care of the hospital.”

38. This must be read in context of the preceding paragraphs stating that Mashaba was initially admitted to the hospital on the Wednesday and was discharged, only to be readmitted a few days later.
39. An ordinary reader would not read into the article a conspiracy to obtain preferential treatment for Mashaba through improper means.
40. The unnamed nurse’s comment that they sought to protect Mashaba from “prying eyes” and left everything to attend to him, similarly, does not imply any impropriety. It implies concern for the well-being of a patient, in this case Mashaba.
41. For these reasons, I cannot find a misrepresentation or distortion.

Updating of information

42. I would be remiss not to consider Sunday World’s obligations under clause 1.9 of the Press Code, which reads:

“(The media shall) state where a report is based on limited information, and supplement it once new information becomes available.”

43. The article in question stated in the last sentence: “This is a developing story and will be updated as more information becomes available.” It has not been updated.
44. Khala details how he approached Sunday World after publication to raise an “objection” thereto. This correspondence was provided to me, and reads:

“(The article) is a long article written about him without once quoting him or his representative… He is awake and lucid. The family is aggrieved and believes that the story was written purely for entertainment purposes and misses the sensitive reality…The insinuations in the story are in bad taste.”

45. What is unfortunate, is that the matter was not followed up properly. It was the perfect opportunity for Sunday World to follow up its own story by asking for an on-the-record interview or comment and, in line with its promise to its readers, update the article. It was a missed opportunity to involve the Mashaba family to avoid this dispute.
46. However, the “objection” did not contain specific new information or a specific complaint about the contents other than that the article was in “bad taste”. Had Khala or the Mashaba family challenged the factual accuracy of any statement in the article at that time or provided new information, I would have been inclined to consider a breach of clause 1.9. As things stand, Sunday World did not ignore relevant new information in breach of clause 1.9.
47. It appears as if the Mashaba family may still want to comment on the matter. I implore Sunday World, in line with its obligations in terms of clause 1.9, to engage with the Mashaba family and to consider whether there is any new information or perspective that might warrant an update to the article, as promised to its readers.

Conclusion

48. The complaint is dismissed.

Herman Scholtz

Press Ombud

11 September 2025

Appeal

The Complaints Procedure lays down that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za.