Moepathutse Property Investments and Directors vs amaBhungane
Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August
19 September 2025
Finding: Complaint 32236
Article (Part One)
Publication: Daily Maverick
Date of publication: 30 May 2025
Headline: IDT mistrust (Part One) – How Minister Zikalala and his ‘comrade chair’ nixed probes into CEO Malaka
Author: Azarrah Karrim, amaBhungane
Article (Part Two)
Publication: Daily Maverick
Date of publication: 31 May 2025
Headline: IDT mistrust (Part Two) – Minister Zikalala’s ‘whitewash’ that secured IDT CEO Malaka her job
Author: Azarrah Karrim, amaBhungane
Particulars
This finding is based on a written complaint by Mr Enslin Nel on behalf of Moepathutse Property Investments and its directors, Mr Vhonani Mufamadi and Mr Thaba Mufamadi, accompanied by annexures; a written reply by Mr Sam Sole of the amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism along with annexures; a written response by Mr Nel; a further written response by Mr Sole at the request of the Public Advocate; a final written response by Mr Nel; and a final written response by Mr Sole.
The articles were originally published by amaBhungane. They were subsequently also published by Daily Maverick and News24. Both Daily Maverick and News24 have an arrangement with amaBhungane that any updates/corrections made after an amicable agreement has been reached between amaBhungane and a complainant, or any sanction directed by the Press Ombud after a complaint has been lodged with the Press Council, will also be published by Daily Maverick and News24.
Complaints
The complainants submit that the two-part series transgresses Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code.
- Summary of articles
1.1. According to Part One, amaBhungane obtained documents which suggest that then Public Works Minister Sihle Zikalala and then Independent Development Trust (IDT) chairperson Kwazi Mshengu launched parallel efforts to shield IDT chief executive Tebogo Malaka from investigations into a R45-million lease scandal.
1.1.1. The allegations include that she concluded a lease agreement with “politically exposed” Moepathutse Property Investments behind the backs of the IDT board of trustees and that the agreement was beyond the scope of her authority.
1.1.2. According to the article, the lease was intended to provide the IDT with new headquarters. However, the IDT never took occupation of these premises and led Moepathutse to sue for R14 million in damages.
1.2. Moepathutse’s directors are former politician Thaba Mufamadi and Vhonani Mufamadi, who are related to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s national security adviser, Sydney Mufamadi.
1.2.1. Moepathutse denied any wrongdoing or that it had any relationship with Malaka.
1.2.2. Mshengu and Zikalala denied any “correlation” between their actions and maintain that these were justified, while Malaka did not respond to amaBhungane’s questions regarding the allegations against her.
1.3. The roots of the controversy go back to a 2022 board resolution to sell the IDT’s headquarters in Pretoria East and procure leased premises instead. (Malaka was acting chief executive at the time.)
1.3.1. The tender process was “seemingly derailed” in May that year when Malaka received a protected disclosure from the head of security, Wilhelm Meyer.
1.3.2. According to the article, an IDT affidavit filed as part of subsequent litigation with Moepathutse alleges that Meyer witnessed the chair of the bid specification committee arriving in the same car as “someone connected to Moepathutse”, which raised concerns about an inappropriate relationship.
1.3.3. A May 2023 draft report from the board to Zikalala states that Malaka only brought Meyer’s disclosure to the board’s attention when it demanded answers from her. Furthermore, “an extensive investigation” that Malaka promised Meyer was allegedly superficial at best.
1.3.4. The tender was nevertheless cancelled and a second advert placed in August 2022. Despite the protected disclosure, Moepathutse was recommended as the winning bidder and an unsigned lease agreement was provided to the board for approval in January 2023.
1.3.5. However, the board was reportedly unaware that Malaka had already signed a letter of award to Moepathutse in November 2022.
1.3.6. The board was also unaware that Malaka had signed a lease agreement in December 2022 even though her finance chief had warned that it was above their delegated authority and that it needed board approval.
1.3.7. The board reportedly approved the lease agreement in February 2023 in the absence of the then chairperson, Zimbini Hill, and despite “outstanding concerns”.
1.3.8. However, after receiving a whistle-blower report the next month, the board rescinded its approval and decided to launch a forensic investigation into the lease procurement and into human resources-related allegations against Malaka as well as other managers.
1.3.9. According to the article, then board member Michael Sutcliffe submitted documentation that allegedly showed that Moepathutse had advertised an annual rental that was 43 percent less than the IDT’s first-year commitment of R7.8 million.
1.3.10. In response to amaBhungane’s questions, Moepathutse said its price was “the lowest of the six bids received by the IDT in response to the public tender”.
1.4. The IDT board mandated the company secretary to approach the National Treasury about undertaking the investigation as a neutral third party. The Treasury confirmed it could do so and the company secretary initiated the process.
1.4.1. A dispute subsequently arose over whether the board had actually mandated the company secretary to launch the investigation or merely to explore the feasibility of doing so.
1.4.2. That same month, Moepathutse lodged a claim in the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria based on the disputed lease contract. Zikalala subsequently intervened with a “fact-finding mission” and cited governance concerns “arising out of the complaints raised with my office”.
1.4.3. Zikalala wrote to board members afterwards and asked them to justify why they should not be removed for failing to implement the IDT’s mandate. Hill then resigned on 8 October 2023 followed by two more trustees.
1.4.4. Zikalala defended his intervention on the grounds that the board members “were not aligned and were clearly divided on many issues, rendering the board dysfunctional”.
1.4.5. Hill’s resignation reportedly paved the way for Mshengu’s entry and Zikalala appointed him as a trustee in November 2023. The board subsequently elected him as its chairperson.
1.5. At his inaugural meeting as chair of the IDT board in November 2023, Mshengu questioned the terms of reference of the National Treasury’s investigation and its impartiality.
1.5.1. A National Treasury spokesperson told amaBhungane that it had received a letter from Mshengu in December 2023 and instructed not to proceed with its investigation. However, its investigation was already at an advanced stage and it concluded its probe based on the information it had collected and the evidence it had obtained.
1.5.2. There were already draft reports by then and the Hawks had been contacted. The Treasury wrote to the board chairperson in February 2024 and requested a meeting to present the findings of its investigation “as at the time of termination”.
1.5.3. However, Mshengu declined and said the board would not accept any reports on the National Treasury investigation and referred to the December letter that terminated the Treasury’s mandate.
1.5.4. Mshengu told amaBhungane that “[t]he trustees who [were] seized with the matter before my arrival unanimously disavowed that they had agreed to the appointment of National Treasury and the terms of reference”.
1.5.5. He said the decision to terminate the National Treasury’s mandate was informed by a “contamination of the process” and that the investigation “was never squashed but was referred” to the Department.
1.5.6. In July 2024 – on the same day the Government of National Unity ministers took their oath of office – Mshengu signed off on Malaka’s permanent appointment.
1.6. According to Part Two, Moepathutse denied any wrongdoing or any relationship with Malaka and sued the IDT for damages and costs after the state-owned enterprise failed to occupy its building.
1.6.1. The IDT argued that the lease was invalid because tender specifications had been “tailor-made” for Moepathutse’s property and because Malaka had signed it without the necessary board authority.
1.6.2. The High Court subsequently dismissed a review application brought by the IDT to set aside the lease and found that the IDT had failed to prove that the lease was “tainted by any illegality”.
1.6.3. The IDT’s founding affidavit was deposed by Malaka even though she was “heavily conflicted”.
1.7. Zikalala, now Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson’s deputy, responded to amaBhungane’s questions, but did not address why his endorsement of Malaka claimed that there was no wrongdoing despite the probe’s limited remit.
1.7.1. However, he said that his predecessor, Patricia de Lille, had already recommended Malaka to the Cabinet when he became Minister in March 2023. He said he had held back Malaka’s appointment for more than a year pending the investigations.
1.7.2. As noted in Part One of the series, a reconstituted board chaired by Mshengu “canned” the National Treasury investigation and asked Zikalala to let his Department conduct an internal investigation instead.
1.7.3. The board’s resolution nevertheless still called for Moepathutse’s selection to be probed, “specifically relating to the relationship between the lessor and the acting CEO”.
However, the new probe was reportedly not forensic and did not focus on Malaka.
1.7.4. The probe’s final report stated that it was “unable to provide reasonable assurance that the procurement process was fair, transparent and regular”. It also identified gaps in the procurement file and “material non-compliance to procurement policies, laws and regulations”.
1.7.5. The report further pointed out that its audit “did not cover the review of conflict of interest of executive management, the board members [and supply chain management] officials to any bidder, especially to the recommended bidder” and stated that this “requires special tools that we do not have”.
1.7.6. The auditors recommended that the board, in consultation with the Minister, request the governance, risk and compliance anti-corruption unit to further investigate those areas that they could not cover or where information was not available to them.
1.7.7. On 20 May 2024 – “the same day the audit report was signed” – Zikalala informed Mshengu in a letter that the Department’s investigation was completed and that no wrongdoing was found on Malaka’s part. He confirmed that he agreed with the board’s decision to appoint her as IDT chief executive.
1.7.8. According to the article, Zikalala did this “knowing his audit team had not probed allegations against Malaka – and despite briefings from the previous board that the Treasury had been tasked to do just that”.
1.7.9. Zikalala stressed that Malaka’s appointment was “not the end of the road” and that the governance, risk and compliance anti-corruption unit had begun a “deeper investigation” as recommended by the internal auditors.
1.7.10. This probe started in November 2024 and was concluded in mid-February 2025. It was now waiting to be signed off by the director-general.
1.8. After Moepathutse filed its damages claim, the IDT argued in a special plea that the bid had been tailored to suit Moepathutse’s building and that Malaka had concluded the lease without board approval.
1.8.1. The IDT asked the court to pause the damages suit to enable it to review its own decision and void the lease. When the IDT filed its review in March 2024, the founding affidavit was deposed by Malaka.
1.8.2. According to the article, she put forward hardly any admissible evidence and the outcome was predictable. On 16 May 2025, Acting Judge SJ Myburgh repeatedly stated that the IDT had not provided any evidence that its decisions were improper.
1.8.3. The judge agreed with Moepathutse that “this application is simply an attempt by the IDT to avoid liability in terms of the now cancelled agreement” and dismissed it with costs.
1.8.4. Moepathutse’s damages claim, which now stands at almost R14 million according to the IDT’s latest annual report, is “effectively irresistible, unless, perhaps, the IDT throws Malaka under the bus”.
- Arguments
Moepathutse Property Investments and Directors
Article (Part One):
2.1. The complainants submit that the article contains inaccuracies, material omissions and deliberate misrepresentations “intended to cast aspersions, make innuendos and convey injurious misconceptions of Moepathutse and its directors in the minds of the reader”.
2.1.1. They further submit that, even though the High Court case was dealt with in Part Two of the series, this does not diminish the gravity of their complaint nor does it eliminate what they deem to be ethical lapses in the first article.
2.2. The complainants then proceed to outline their complaints in detail.
2.2.1. Firstly, they maintain that the term “politically exposed” and the reference to the relationship of the directors to Sydney Mufamadi is without any factual connection to the dispute, and is malicious and intended to cast aspersions on the company’s directors. They maintain that this is in breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code.
2.2.2. They further submit that, unless there is evidence of corruption, interference or undue influence, these references constitute distorted and untruthful reporting and are in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
2.3. The complainants state that amaBhungane was aware of the High Court ruling before the article was published. They contend that the failure to quote the court’s findings in relation to the article is therefore a deliberate omission in contravention of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
2.3.1. They point out that the court ruled that the IDT failed to show any conflict of interest, that the tender process was competitive and transparent, and that the IDT failed to show that its lease agreement with Moepathutse was tainted by any illegality.
2.4. The complainants also take issue with a quote in the article from an IDT affidavit that Meyer witnessed the chair of the bid specification committee arriving in the same car as someone connected to Moepathutse and argue that this raised concern about an inappropriate relationship.
2.4.1. However, they maintain that the court dismissed these allegations as hearsay evidence.
2.5. The complainants also object to the reference in the article that the chair of a subsequent bid specification committee meeting allegedly specified criteria that “surprisingly fit” Moepathutse’s property, including a canteen, a bicycle shed and showers.
2.5.1. The court found that there was no evidence that other bidders were unable to provide a cafeteria and also said that there was no evidence to show that the inclusion of a cafeteria in the building requirements constituted an improper advantage to Moepathutse.
2.6. The complainants go on to take issue with the statement in the article that Moepathutse marketed the same building “at significantly lower rates than the IDT lease”.
2.6.1. They state that the relevance of this reference is unclear, but suggest that it was intended to create innuendos of corruption and tender manipulation without providing any evidence.
2.7. The complainants further submit that the court ruling “vitiates, undermines, and destroys the substantive premise of the article insofar as it creates the false impression of impropriety on the part of Moepathutse”. They maintain that the failure to include this ruling in this article is highly unethical and a deliberate distortion.
2.7.1. They reiterate that the court found that the tender process was competitive and transparent (see point 2.3.1) and that there was no evidence before the court to indicate that the bid evaluation committee deviated from the published information and requirements when it evaluated the tenders.
2.7.2. The court also stated that it agrees with Moepathutse’s argument that the IDT’s application was an attempt to avoid liability for the now-cancelled agreement. It added that the IDT did not at any stage during the court proceedings explain why it did not take occupation of the property.
2.8. The complainants submit that amaBhungane intended to create the impression that the allegations made by its sources were true, undisputed and the only version of events. However, they say, these allegations were tested by a competent court of law.
2.8.1. They maintain that the court ruling was material and relevant whenever Moepathutse and its directors were mentioned, and should have served as a counterbalance to any “spurious” allegations.
2.8.2. They state that amaBhungane was aware of the court ruling, but intentionally chose to ignore “publicly stated facts”. They regard this as unethical and unprofessional.
2.9. Accordingly, the complainants request a retraction or correction of Part One of the series as well as an apology to Moepathutse and its directors on all related platforms where the article was published.
2.9.1. In addition, they request an explanation for what they regard as lapses in checks and standards as well as a promise that future stories that involve Moepathutse and its directors will be fair and balanced.
amaBhungane
2.10. The respondent maintains that the entire complaint is based on the judgment of the High Court in May. It denies that this judgment was deliberately omitted in Part One of the series (see point 2.7) and that this was unfair and inaccurate.
2.10.1. The respondent submits that the two articles were part of a series published on two consecutive days. It adds that Part Two of the series reported on the court ruling “at the point where it became relevant in the narrative”.
2.10.2. It argues that to disregard the second article is cynical and inconsistent with the manner in which stories that form part of a series are assessed, both before the courts and before the Ombud.
2.10.3. The respondent notes that the Press Ombud has previously stated that “stories should be read in context if they have been published within a reasonable space of time”,[1] in line with the Constitutional Court’s ruling in The Citizen 1978 (Pty) Ltd and Others v McBride.[2]
2.10.4. It points out that Constitutional Court Judge Cameron held that his conclusion “accords with decisions of the European Court of Human Rights to the effect that a publication alleged to be defamatory must be assessed in relation to its whole” (emphasis by the respondent).[3]
2.10.5. In addition, the respondent refers to the Supreme Court of Appeal case Independent Newspaper Holdings Ltd and Others v Suliman, which held that “a defamatory meaning should not be attributed to an isolated part of a newspaper report if the rest of the report would show that it is not justified”.[4]
2.10.6. Although the approach of the courts relates to questions of defamation, the respondent argues that it also relates to the manner in which reporting should be interpreted when it is adjudicated.
2.10.7. Regarding the current complaint, amaBhungane states that the stories were published as two parts of a series and prominently referred to denials of wrongdoing by Moepathutse when relevant. Furthermore, it says, the second article was linked to the first article via a hyperlink.
2.10.8. It submits that the series should therefore be read “in context, as a whole”. Understood in this way, it maintains, the series does not contain any deliberate omission, was not inaccurate and does not treat the complainants unfairly.
2.11. The respondent goes on to argue that the court ruling is only “a part of the principal focus” of the series and, furthermore, that it has limited impact on the series (note points 2.11.2 and 2.11.9 below).
2.11.1. amaBhungane notes that the headlines, “key takeaway” paragraphs and content of the articles make it clear that the series set out to explain how Zikalala and Mshengu intervened to protect Malaka after the IDT board accused her of entering into a lease without the necessary authority.
2.11.2. It submits that this paved the way for Malaka’s permanent appointment as chief executive “at a state-owned enterprise that appears to have become a new scene of state capture”. It states that this was the primary focus of the series.
2.11.3. The article describes the tender process, a whistle-blower complaint that was kept from the board and the signing of a lease by Malaka without the requisite authority and without the knowledge of the board.
2.11.4. It also records the board’s concerns at the time and its attempt to rescind its approval of the lease. The board’s efforts to secure a forensic investigation into Malaka’s conduct was followed by the ousting of Hill, then board chairperson, and her replacement by Mshengu.
2.11.5. Mshengu subsequently terminated a National Treasury investigation into, among other things, the relationship between Malaka and Moepathutse.
2.11.6. An internal audit report, “based on much narrower terms that excluded the charges of dishonesty and the lack of authority on Malaka’s part”, was then conducted by the Department of Public Works.
2.11.7. Zikalala used this report to claim that Malaka was cleared of all charges, which paved the way for her permanent appointment as IDT chief executive. He signed off on her appointment on his last day as Minister.
2.11.8. The respondent states that the complainants have not challenged any of these issues – “save for the judgment”.
2.11.9. It notes that this judgment was handed down on May 16 and comes at the tail end of the above chronology. It adds that the judgment only relates to part of the focus of the articles, namely “the lease which sparked the above events”.
Article (Part One):
2.12. The respondent then addresses the manner in which it reported on those aspects of the story which relate to the complainants and singles out five features in Part One of the series.
2.12.1. It again states that the critical reportage in this article primarily relates to Zikalala, Mshengu, Malaka (particularly what it regards as her questionable conduct in entering into the lease agreement) and the IDT board.
2.12.2. Moepathutse is not mentioned in the “key takeaways” part of the article nor is Moepathutse or the lease mentioned in the headline (see point 2.11.1).
2.12.3. It further points out that Part One records as early as the fifth paragraph that Moepathutse “denied any wrongdoing or that it had a relationship with Malaka”.
2.12.4. The article also records that Moepathutse’s price was “the lowest of the six bids received by the IDT in response to the public tender”.
2.12.5. Furthermore, it says the article refers to the fact that Moepathutse initiated a damages case against the IDT. In its view, therefore, no reader could have been in doubt that the matter was already subject to a legal challenge.
Article (Part Two):
2.13. The respondent states that Part Two then dealt with the manner in which the investigation into Malaka was quashed after it had effectively been transferred to Zikalala’s Department.
2.13.1. The second article records, “early on”, that the court “dismissed a review application” that the IDT had brought and that the judge found that the IDT had “failed to prove that the lease was ‘tainted by any illegality’ ”.
2.13.2. It points out that the litigation was mentioned upfront in order to foreground the outcome of the issue. (It adds that a lengthier explanation is set out later in the article.)
2.13.3. The article then returns to a description of how the litigation unfolded. In particular, it includes “the very quote” from the judgment that the complaint relies on in its complaint (point 1.8.3).
2.13.4. The respondent submits that it is not unreasonable to split such a complex story into two parts. Furthermore, it says, it is difficult to understand what possible advantage it could have secured by deliberately omitting the outcome of the review case for a single day.
2.13.5. AmaBhungane contends that, when read in context and as a whole, its reporting is not inaccurate or unfair. Nor, it argues, is there any deliberate departure from the facts.
Articles (Part One and Part Two):
2.14. The respondent also disputes the complainants’ contention that the court judgment does away with the entire premise of its series for a number of reasons.
2.14.1. Firstly, it says, the judgment and the series are not about the same issue. The judge was seized with the question of whether the IDT had proved that the lease should be set aside and not with some of the main charges levelled against Malaka by the board, namely that she had signed a lease without the necessary authority and had hidden this from the board.
2.14.2. Secondly, it states that Malaka was the party through whom evidence was placed before the court by the IDT even though she was “centrally implicated” in these matters.
2.14.3. Thirdly, it says the judge repeatedly pointed out that insufficient evidence was placed before the court. The respondent contends that Malaka had every reason to provide a limited picture because of the potential of adverse findings against her. It points out that none of her “questionable conduct” featured in her affidavit (the affidavit is included as an annexure).
2.14.4. Fourthly, the respondent states that it has evidence that was not before the court, such as board minutes, draft reports and internal correspondence.
2.14.5. The respondent points out that that it does not say that the court was “wrong”; it says it is simply explaining why it believes the court reached the conclusion that it did. Moreover, it does not believe that the court ruling “vitiate[s], undermine[s] and destroy[s]” the entire premise of its series (as the complainants argue in point 2.7).
2.14.6. It maintains that the series is about how a compromised individual was installed to head a state-owned enterprise that subsequently began to “haemorrhage” millions of rands into South Africa’s illicit economy.
2.15. The respondent then addresses other issues insofar as it has not done so already.
2.15.1. With regard to the phrase “politically exposed”, the respondent points out that this terminology is drawn from the legislative framework introduced by the Financial Intelligence Centre Act.[5]
2.15.2. In terms of Schedule 3A of the Act, a “domestic politically exposed person” is an individual who holds or has held a prominent public function in South Africa. Section 21H(1) requires a greater degree of care and due diligence from accountable institutions such as state-owned enterprises like the IDT when doing business with politically exposed individuals.
2.15.3. It notes that Moepathutse’s directors are brothers of the president’s national security adviser and, furthermore, that Thaba Mufamadi is a former Member of Parliament. In terms of the Act, the respondent says, Moepathutse is therefore politically exposed.
2.15.4. It adds that its use of the term does not suggest that a politically exposed individual has done wrong and points out that, in fact, it records the company’s denial of any wrongdoing.
2.16. With regard to Meyer’s evidence, the respondent submits that the court did not dismiss it as hearsay evidence. In fact, it says, it was one of the few accepted evidentiary facts that made it into the court proceedings.
2.16.1. It goes on to point out that the court ruling cannot – and does not – change the fact that this allegation was made, and notes that the allegation is clearly identified as such in Malaka’s founding affidavit.
2.17. The respondent offers the same response with regard to the claim that, at a subsequent meeting of the bid specification committee, the chairperson specified criteria that “surprisingly fit” Moepathutse’s property.
2.17.1. It submits that the court ruling does not alter or render “unreportable” the fact that this allegation was made in the founding affidavit. It is clearly identified as an allegation in Part One and is preceded by Moepathutse’s denial of any wrongdoing.
2.18. The respondent also states that the complaint about the reference to evidence that Moepathutse marketed the same property at lower rates than the IDT lease is unclear and notes that there is no indication of how the Press Code is allegedly contravened.
2.18.1. It adds that this portion of Part One in the series was not drawn from the litigation but was based on documents in its possession. Moreover, it says, Moepathutse’s response to this aspect of the article is reflected.
2.19. In conclusion, the respondent submits that, at best, its breach of the Press Code is a tier one offence that requires a correction only.
Moepathutse Property Investments and Directors
2.20. In their response, the complainants submit that their initial complaint concerned a narrow issue, namely “asking amaBhungane to highlight the court ruling in its first part of the series”.
2.20.1. They state that the allegations made against Moepathutse in Part One of the series were found to lack evidence by the High Court and that it dismissed the IDT’s application to review and set aside the lease agreement.
2.20.2. They maintain that the court case was relevant to the allegations against Moepathutse and note that the High Court dismissed the IDT’s application for leave to appeal on July 11.
2.21. With regard to the “serialised articles”, the complainants argue that the respondent – and the media at large – cannot possess discretionary power on which facts to omit and at what stage. They argue that ethical obligations demand that all facts be reported, including unfavourable facts that may reduce the impact of a story.
2.21.1. They maintain that the time frame between the first and second part of the series is irrelevant and cannot be used as a defence not to provide all the available information. They say that those who only read Part One should have all the relevant facts concerning, “at the very least”, all the key allegations in that article.
2.21.2. They submit that newsmakers and the subjects of critical reportage cannot be “at the mercy of a preferred presentation of serialised reports”. They contend that it is an evasion of responsibility to argue that the complexity of certain issues necessitates the omission of some facts in one part of a series.
2.21.3. They suggest that attaching a footnote, a link, an explainer and an apology to Part One of the article will not destroy the crux of an article. Instead, they submit, it will enhance the integrity and honesty of the article.
2.21.4. They believe that allowing the media the discretion of when to include or exclude crucial facts will amount to granting journalists “a license to defame and destroy people’s integrity with impunity”.
2.21.5. They maintain that merely referring to Moepathutse’s right to reply in the form of recording their denial was not enough to meet the ethical standard of fairness.
2.21.6. They further maintain that the respondent does not provide reasonable and justifiable reasons why it initially ignored the court ruling. They believe the ruling was “integral to any reference to and allegations against Moepathutse”.
2.21.7. They argue that the deliberate disregard of certain facts is an intentional distortion and misrepresentation (in violation of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code).
2.21.8. They submit that, just as amaBhungane correctly saw it fit to state in Part One that Moepathutse denied the allegations of irregular or corrupt conduct, it should have stated in the same article that these allegations were dismissed by the High Court as lacking evidence.
2.21.9. They reiterate that allowing a journalist to decide what facts to exclude “will open the sluicegates of omissions under the guise of serialised reporting”. However, they say, the structure and presentation of stories should not have any bearing on the accuracy of the story.
2.21.10. For this reason, they say they proposed in their initial complaint that Part One should reflect that there was a court ruling insofar as the article makes reference to Moepathutse. They argue that failing to do so is prejudicial to Moepathutse and amounts to “distortions through omission of facts” (in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code).
2.22. The complainants also express disquiet that the respondent appears to be submitting that the court did not take into account any other evidence or facts and suggest that this borders on an indirect challenge to a court ruling “when it suits them”.
2.22.1. They state that Moepathutse relies on the court ruling for the simple reason that it proves that they followed the letter and spirit of the procurement process. They maintain it was therefore ethically binding on amaBhungane to reflect this ruling in all parts of its series.
2.22.2. Failing to do so, they argue, amounts to deliberate distortions, omission and misrepresentation (in violation of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code).
2.22.3. With regard to the respondent’s assertion that the court could not reach a conclusion because of a lack of evidence, they submit that this does not give the media the license to indirectly conclude that Moepathutse flouted the procurement process. They add that such an assertion is, in fact, incorrect as the court did come to a conclusion.
2.22.4. They maintain that “[i]solating some parts of evidence, subjectively weighing its probative value, and therefore deciding what the court ruling ought to have been, amounts to second-guessing the court, or allowing the media to reject a ruling unfavourable and incompatible with their story”. If allowed, they argue, this would stretch freedom of the media “perilously far” and set a dangerous precedent.
2.23. The complainants further submit that amaBhungane provides an extensive account of the IDT’s internal dynamics and that it incorrectly argues that Moepathutse’s complaint covered these issues. They say this is a misunderstanding of their initial complaint.
2.23.1. They maintain that they encourage amaBhungane to report on any abuse of state resources, corruption or other malfeasance. They declare that they are opposed to corruption and its negative impact on public institutions.
2.23.2. However, they submit that it is incorrect to create the impression that their complaint is about “the totality of the story” insofar as it reports on corruption. They contend that their complaint was confined to the references to Moepathutse in the articles.
2.23.3. They state that a report on the conduct of the IDT’s chief executive should not be conflated with their complaint “regarding a plea for factual, balanced, and fair reporting”.
2.24. The complainants further point out that there is no dispute regarding the familial relationship between Moepathutse’s directors and Sydney Mufamadi, and agree that a greater degree of care and due diligence is expected when doing business with politically exposed individuals.
2.24.1. They also accept the label of politically exposed persons as defined by the Financial Intelligence Centre Act. However, they say, it cannot be used without context.
2.24.2. And without the context of the court’s finding that there was nothing wrong with the process followed by Moepathutse, they say, familial ties could be misconstrued “to mean that someone higher up has interfered with the tender process”.
2.24.3. They state that, while there is no allegation that Sydney Mufamadi was involved in any way in the tender and lease process reported on, the innuendo in the series cannot be missed “even by the most naïve and generous of readers”. Furthermore, they add, the articles neglect to state that there is no allegation that he was involved in any way in “this saga”.
2.24.4. In the absence of an appropriate context, they submit that Part One of the series contravenes Clause 1.2 of the Press Code as it creates the wrong impression in the mind of the reader.
2.25. The complainants conclude by calling for an oral hearing on the matter because they believe amaBhungane misinterprets and misunderstands their initial complaint.
amaBhungane
2.26. The respondent addresses the Public Advocate’s request for a further response to the complainant’s reply, and in particular to “whether a request by the complainant could be complied with as a settlement”, namely to reflect in Part One that there was a court ruling insofar as this article makes reference to Moepathutse.
2.26.1. While amaBhungane believes there does indeed appear to be a simple solution, it expresses reservations about certain aspects of the complainants’ request.
2.26.2. Firstly, it says, there is no reference in Part One to the fact that Malaka – who was conflicted – was the deponent in the High Court case. It submits that the complainants have “no answer” to this.
2.26.3. It adds that the judge in the court ruling referred several times to the lack of evidence put before him by the IDT. It states that the complainants have no answer to this either.
2.26.4. AmaBhungane believes these aspects provide a critical context and points out that this context appears in Part Two only.
2.26.5. It argues that Part Two will lose that critical context if a simple line is inserted in Part One to the effect that “Moepathutse won”. It asserts that this will effectively result in Part One being in breach of the Press Code.
2.27. The respondent goes on to submit that the complainants have “doubled down” on their belief that courts are the sole arbiters of truth in society. They offer no authority to support this view, it states, other than a belief that an outcome of the court can never be questioned.
2.27.1. AmaBhungane refers to Constitutional Court Judge Kriegler’s dictum in S v Mamabolo that it has long been accepted that adjudication should be in the open “to ensure that the citizenry know what is happening, such knowledge in turn being a means towards the next objective: so that the people can discuss, endorse, criticise, applaud or castigate the conduct of their courts”[6] (emphasis by respondent).
2.27.2. The respondent adds that it does not contend that the High Court was wrong, but only seeks to draw attention to “the limited evidential picture that a compromised person put before that court”.
2.28. Nonetheless, in the interest of attempting to resolve this complaint amicably, the respondent proposes that an editorial footnote be added to the bottom of Part One.
2.28.1. It suggests that this footnote should read as follows: “Following a complaint by Moepathutse to the Press Council, and a settlement agreement between the parties, AmaBhungane records that Moepathutse won the IDT’s attempt to review the lease, with the presiding judge making scathing remarks about the IDT’s case. But that case, as we explain in part two,[7] was brought to court by the hopelessly conflicted Malaka, who deposed … the founding affidavit. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the presiding judge, in his judgment, made frequent reference to the lack of evidence that had been placed before him by the IDT.”
2.28.2. The respondent states that this offer is made on an entirely without prejudice basis and notes that it reserves the right to defend the matter in full.
Moepathutse Property Investments and Directors
2.29. In response, the complainants state that Moepathutse’s complaint was about the respondent’s reference to the company and its directors, and say that they cannot speak for the CEO and the IDT’s board. They submit that it is therefore unfair to expect Moepathutse to answer for the IDT’s decision regarding the choice of the deponent.
2.29.1. They further say they have repeatedly encouraged the respondent to report on any wrongdoing and corruption. In fact, they say, they want amaBhungane to report more – “including the facts that emanated from the court”. However, they contend that amaBhungane has been trying to avoid doing so.
2.29.2. They argue that the respondent cannot be granted the right to interpret court judgments “subjectively to suit its narrative”.
2.29.3. They state that the IDT applied for leave to appeal and that this was dismissed. The state-owned enterprise subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeal. They add that these are “objective, established, and recognised judicial processes that cannot and should not be subverted under the pretext or in the name of free speech”.
2.29.4. The complainants also maintain that it is unfair and disingenuous for amaBhungane to expect Moepathutse to answer regarding the judge’s comments. They state that, in line with the judicial process, they answered their case in a competent court of law.
2.29.5. They say they accepted the ruling, including those parts that were not necessarily favourable to them. However, they argue, amaBhungane persistently and conveniently ignored the parts of the ruling that showed that Moepathutse followed all the tender processes and requirements.
2.29.6. The complainants reiterate their belief that allowing the respondent to assume a self-imposed and extrajudicial role will give the media “untrammel[l]ed, unregulated and unlimited power to choose which court ruling is acceptable or warrant omission”.
2.29.7. They believe that this goes beyond the bounds of Judge Kriegler’s dictum and exceeds the freedom to criticise the courts. They contend that this is not about media criticism of the courts, but about amaBhungane assuming the role of the court “and usurping its authority and power”.
2.29.8. It says that amaBhungane is free to critique the court’s ruling if it wishes to do so, but that this should be within the bounds of the Press Code – “without conflating opinion, suppositions, and factual reporting”, in line with Clause 1.3.
2.30. Regarding the respondent’s proposed editorial footnote, the complainants request the removal of what they regard to be a subjective and emotional subtext that Moepathutse is trying to stop amaBhungane from unearthing corruption; that Moepathutse did not follow an open tender process; that the court’s ruling was wrong; and that Moepathutse must answer for the CEO or IDT.
2.30.1. They say their remedial suggestion has always been for amaBhungane to alert readers to the court’s ruling without undermining the rest of the story. They believe that this is fair, balanced and objective journalism.
2.30.2. They therefore suggest an edited version of the respondent’s proposed editorial note: “Following a complaint by Moepathutse to the Press Council, and a settlement agreement between the parties, amaBhungane records that Moepathutse has won the case wherein the IDT’s attempt to have the lease reviewed and set aside failed. amaBhungane should have included the ruling of this case in part one of its report as part of its ongoing reporting on this matter of public interest. We apologise for the omission. For more coverage on this matter … attach hyperlink.”
2.30.3. They point out that they have removed the commentary on the ruling because the respondent has omitted parts of the ruling that are in Moepathutse’s favour. They add that they are willing to reinstate amaBhungane’s commentary provided it is balanced and free of deliberate omissions and baseless innuendos.
amaBhungane
2.31. The respondent believes the complainants want to have their cake and eat it: they want their court “win” to be included in the editorial footnote, but not “the necessary caveats”.
2.31.1. In light of the above, it requests that the matter be referred to the Press Ombud.
- Analysis
3.1. Complaint one: The key aspect of this complaint is that Part One of amaBhungane’s series does not include information about a High Court ruling that found that there was no evidence to indicate any impropriety by Moepathutse when it procured a lease to provide new premises for the IDT (see point 2.7).
3.1.1. The complainants submit that this omission creates a false impression and casts aspersions on Moepathutse and its directors.
3.1.2. The respondent defends its two-part series on several grounds, including that the series deals with a complex matter and that it is standard journalistic practice to present such a matter in an accessible and comprehensible form.
3.1.3. There is indeed merit in this argument. Articles presented as part of a series should be read in context as a unified entity. According to the Collins English Dictionary, the word “series” – which is explicitly used in Part One – refers to “a group or connected succession of similar or related things”[8] (my emphasis).
3.1.4. In other words, articles that are presented as part of a series cannot be read as distinct entities, separate from each other. To regard such articles as unrelated, self-standing entities would be to unreasonably disregard the connections that are inherently part of a series.
3.1.5. Moreover, the respondent rightly points out that the series was published on two consecutive days. This contradicts any suggestion that amaBhungane was unfairly and unreasonably withholding information about the court ruling from readers.
3.1.6. In support of such a conclusion is the fact that Part One of the series refers more than once to the second part of the series. And, when Part Two was published the following day, it included a hyperlink to Part One.
3.1.7. There is also merit in the respondent’s argument that the court ruling is only part of the focus of the series; it is not itself the main focus of the series.
3.1.8. The primary focus of the series is, in fact, on the role that Zikalala and Mshengu allegedly played in creating the circumstances for Malaka to be appointed as the IDT’s chief executive (see points 2.11.1 and 2.11.2).
3.1.9. Such a view is supported by the fact that there is no mention at all of Moepathutse in the headlines or in the key “takeaway” paragraphs of either of the two articles. The directors are not included either in any of the photographs accompanying the articles.
3.1.10. Furthermore, the first article states quite explicitly: “Part One of this series shows how, soon after taking over as IDT chair, Mshengu led his board in quashing a forensic investigation facilitated by the National Treasury, asking Zikalala to have his Department of Public Works and Infrastructure conduct a probe instead.”
3.1.11. Moepathutse features in Part One only insofar as the proposed investigation includes allegations that Malaka signed a lease agreement with the company without the knowledge of the IDT board of trustees and outside the scope of her authority (point 1.1.1).
3.1.12. It is also important to note that the IDT board decided to initiate an investigation into the lease in May 2023, whereas the High Court only delivered its ruling in May 2025 – two years later.
3.1.13. It was therefore reasonable for amaBhungane to first outline the allegations against Malaka before providing the subsequent finding of the court in this regard. A two-part series offered the respondent a coherent and reasonable format to do so.
3.1.14. Moreover, as the respondent correctly argues, the court case deals specifically with the legality of the lease (Part Two), and not with the internal dynamics of the IDT and the roles purportedly played by Zikalala and Mshengu in Malaka’s appointment as the IDT’s chief executive (Part One).
3.1.15. By not including information about the court ruling in Part One, the respondent is therefore not in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
3.2. Complaint two: In a related complaint, the complainants maintain that, without the context of the High Court ruling in Part One of the series, this article may be misconstrued to suggest that there was interference in how the company secured the lease agreement with the IDT (see point 2.24.2).
3.2.1. In particular, they object to Moepathutse being described as politically exposed and to the reference to the family relationship between its directors and Sydney Mufamadi in this article.
3.2.2. However, nowhere is there any suggestion in the article that Sydney Mufamadi was in any way involved in the tender process, either directly or indirectly. Noting his family relationship with the directors in the article was merely stating a matter of fact.
3.2.3. The respondent also rightly points out that, in the same paragraph that it mentions Sydney Mufamadi, it also records that Moepathutse “has denied wrongdoing …” (see point 2.15.4).
3.2.4. Furthermore, as a former Member of Parliament, Thaba Mufamadi does indeed meet the criteria of a politically exposed person as defined in the Finance Intelligence Centre Act (point 2.15.3). Describing Moepathutse as “politically exposed” is therefore justifiable in the circumstances.
3.2.5. In light of the above, there is no breach of either Clause 1.2 or Clause 1.3 of the Press Code.
3.3. Complaint three: The complainants complain about the reference in Part One to the allegation that Meyer witnessed the chair of the bid specification committee arriving in the same car as “someone connected to Moepathutse” and say that the court dismissed this as hearsay evidence (see points 2.4 and 2.4.1).
3.3.1. In its response, amaBhungane disputes the claim that this evidence was dismissed as hearsay (2.16) and, furthermore, submits that the court ruling does not change the fact that this allegation was made in the IDT’s founding affidavit (see point 2.16.1).
3.3.2. The respondent was indeed entitled to refer to Meyer’s allegation in Part One on the basis of the IDT’s founding affidavit. However, it did not subsequently inform readers of the pronouncement of the court in this regard.
3.3.3. For the record, the judge states that “I ruled that the hearsay evidence of Meyer … was not admissible save insofar as such evidence was common cause”.
3.3.4. In the interests of context and balance, the respondent should not have left Meyer’s allegation hanging in the air. It should have followed up this allegation and reflected the finding of the High Court in this regard.
3.3.5. The respondent’s argument – that it adequately addressed this aspect in Part Two of the series “when it reported that the judge found the IDT had failed to prove the lease was ‘tainted by any illegality’ ” – is unsatisfactory.
3.3.6. There would have been more clarity and balance in the series if Meyer’s allegation was explicitly followed up and the court ruling recorded in relation to this allegation (even if this was only done in Part Two when it deals with the outcome of the High Court case).
3.3.7. By neglecting to do so, the respondent is deemed to be in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
3.4. Complaint four: The complainants object to the reference in Part One of the series that the chair of a bid specification committee meeting subsequently specified criteria that fit Moepathutse’s property to a surprising degree (see point 2.5).
3.4.1. They point out that the court found that there was no evidence that other bidders were unable to provide a facility such as a canteen nor was there any evidence that such a facility gave Moepathutse an unfair advantage.
3.4.2. In response to this complaint, the respondent points out that the allegation that the bid was tailored to suit Moepathutse’s building was made in the IDT’s founding affidavit before the High Court. It was therefore indeed entitled to include this allegation in the article.
3.4.3. However, in the interest of balance, the respondent should have followed up the IDT’s allegation and recorded the finding of the High Court in this regard (even if it only did so in Part Two of the article when it deals with the outcome of the High Court case).
3.4.4. Its defence – that the reference to the similarities between the criteria of the bid specification committee and the Moepathutse property was preceded by the company’s denial of any wrongdoing – is inadequate (see point 2.17.1).
3.4.5. It is not wholly clear that the denial of wrongdoing that is recorded in paragraph five of the article also applies to the reference that the bid specification criteria spelt out by the chair of a subsequent meeting fit Moepathutse’s property to a surprising extent.
3.4.6. As a result, the omission of the court’s finding on this allegation in the IDT’s founding affidavit can be deemed to be in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
3.5. Complaint five: The complainants take issue with the statement in Part One that Moepathutse marketed the building at “significantly lower rates than the IDT lease” and contend that this insinuates that it engaged in tender manipulation (see points 2.6 and 2.6.1).
3.5.1. However, the respondent did contact the company about this aspect and, in the same article, duly recorded Moepathutse’s statement that its price was the lowest of all the bids received by the IDT in response to a public tender (point 1.3.10).
3.5.2. By publishing the company’s response, the respondent gave Moepathutse an adequate opportunity to refute any suggestion that it unfairly secured the lease agreement with the IDT.
3.5.3. Based on this consideration, there is no breach of the Press Code. (The complainants do not specify any particular clause, but this complaint presumably refers to either Clause 1.1 or Clause 1.2.)
3.6. Complaint six: With regard to Part Two of the series, the complainants submit that amaBhungane interprets some of the evidence before the High Court in a way that allows it to reject a ruling that is unfavourable or incompatible with its story.
3.6.1. The complainants claim that “deciding what the court ruling ought to have been” amounts to second-guessing the court (see point 2.22.4).
3.6.2. While they acknowledge the respondent’s right to critique the court’s ruling, they believe amaBhungane consistently ignores those parts of the ruling that showed that Moepathutse complied with all the tender processes and requirements (see point 2.29.5).
3.6.3. By doing so, they argue that the respondent assumes unlimited power to choose which court ruling is acceptable or which can be omitted. They believe this exceeds the bounds of Judge Kriegler’s dictum (points 2.29.6 and 2.29.7).
3.6.4. It is best left to the courts to make a pronouncement on this aspect. The ambit of the Press Ombuds is limited to adjudicating the ethical obligations on the media as set out in the Press Code.
3.6.5. In this regard, it is appropriate to note that Part Two of the series does record that the High Court dismissed the IDT’s review application to set aside the lease and that the court dismissed the IDT’s application with costs.
3.6.6. The article further reports that the court found that the lease was not tainted by any illegality and that it agreed with Moepathutse that the IDT’s application was merely an attempt to avoid liability in terms of the now-cancelled agreement.
3.6.7. In other words, despite amaBhungane’s misgivings about a court ruling based on what it believes to be limited evidence placed before the court by Malaka, it sufficiently complies with the Press Code in that it provides a fair account of the outcome of the High Court case.
3.6.8. In light of the above, there is no breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code.
- Finding
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.5.1 to 3.5.3 of my Analysis. (Other alleged breaches of this clause are dealt with more appropriately in relation to Clause 1.2 and Clause 1.3 below.)
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is dismissed on three counts for the reasons outlined in my Analysis under points 3.1.2 to 3.1.15, points 3.2.2 to 3.2.5 and points 3.5.1 to 3.5.3. However, the complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is upheld on two counts for the reasons set out in points 3.3.2 to 3.3.7 and points 3.4.3 to 3.4.6 of my Analysis.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in my Analysis under points 3.2.2 to 3.2.5 and points 3.6.4 to 3.6.8.
Firstly, amaBhungane is required to update the series in relation to the two breaches of Clause 1.2 and include the relevant findings of the High Court.
Secondly, the update should publish a note under the headline: “NOTE: This series has been updated. See Editor’s Note below.” The Editor’s Note should state when and how the series has been updated.
Thirdly, the final update should be approved by me prior to publication.
The above should:
- be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed or, in the event of such an application, after that ruling;
- be published online on Daily Maverick’s landing page for one day and on all its platforms where the article was published;
- be published online with a headline including the words “update” and “Moepathutse”;
- be published with a link to the updated online article;
- refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
- end with the sentence, “Visit presscouncil.org.zafor the full finding”;
- be published with the logo of the Press Council; and
- be approved by me.
Appeal
The Complaints Procedures lay 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
Tyrone August
Deputy Press Ombud
19 September 2025
[1] See https://presscouncilsa.org.za/2016/08/04/louie-amorim-vs-lowvelder/
[2] The Press Ombud also notes this Constitutional Court ruling more recently in https://presscouncilsa.org.za /2025/04/15/skg-africa-others-vs-sunday-world/
[3] See https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2011/11.html
[4] See www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2004/57media.pdf
[5] See https://www.fic.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Financial-Intelligence-Centre-Act-2001-Act-38-of-2001.pdf
[6] See https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2001/17.html
[7] The respondent says the underlined text [“part two”] will be hyperlinked to Part Two of the article.
[8] See the Collins English Dictionary: Millennium Edition, page 1 403).