Moepathutse Property Investment and Directors vs amaBhungane
BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA
In the matter between:
Moepathutse Property Investments and Directors Applicant
and
AmaBhungane Respondent
Matter No: 32236/06/2025
DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
- This is an application by Moepathutse Property Investments and Directors (the applicant) for leave to appeal the Ruling of the Deputy Press Ombud dated 19 September 2025. The complaint, which is in effect against AmaBhungane (respondent), followed the publication of two articles; the first one on 30 May 2025, and the second one, as a follow-up to the first one, on 31 May 2025. The first one was headlined: “IDT mistrust (Part One) – How Minister Zikalala and his ‘comrade chair’ nixed probes into CEO Malaka”. The second article was headlined: “IDT mistrust (Part Two) – Minister Zikalala’s ‘whitewash’ that secured IDT CEO Malaka her job”. The articles were published by the respondent and subsequently by both Daily Maverick and News24. The complaint was that the two-part series was in violation of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code.
- In his Ruling, the Deputy Ombud stated the gist of the first article as follows: “AmaBhungane obtained documents which suggest that then Public Works Minister and then Independent Development Trust … Chairperson Kwazi Mshengu launched parallel efforts to shield IDT chief executive Tebogo Malaka from investigation into a R45-million lease scandal.” The story suggested some impropriety or irregularity with regard to the conclusion of the agreement, including that the company was politically exposed. Regarding the follow-up article, the Ruling says that the applicant “denied any wrongdoing or any relationship with Malaka.”
It is not necessary to go into the details of the matter. Suffice it to state that the IDT, after failing to take occupation of the building in terms of the lease, was successfully sued for damages in court by the company; i.e. the IDT’s contention that the lease agreement was invalid, was rejected by the High Court. Also central to the complaint, with regard to the issue of political exposure, was reference to Mr Sydney Mufamadi, the President’s national security adviser; the two directors, namely, Thaba Mufamadi (a former politician) and Vhonani Mufamadi are related to Mr Sydney Mufamadi. Central to the complaint, was that some material facts which should have been contained in the first article, were omitted and only appeared in the second article the following day. These were some findings in the High court proceedings which the applicant said found that there was no evidence of impropriety on the part of the applicant in procuring the lease agreement in question. Such omission, it was argued, created a false and negative impression and also cast aspersions on the company and its directors.
- It its defence, the respondent argued i.a. that no reference had been made to Mr Sydney Mufamadi and denied implying or insinuating any corruption or undue influence by him. It was argued by the respondent that even though some information could have been left in the first article, it had been indicated that there was going to be a second one as a follow-up, which would provide whatever material facts would have been omitted in the first one. It was also argued that, moreover, the second article was published only the following day, with the allegedly omitted facts.
- Some parts of the complaint were dismissed, while others were upheld, with the sanction imposed. There is no application by the respondent for a cross-appeal; therefore, no further reference will be made to those upheld. The focus is on the dismissed aspects of the complaint, with reference to the grounds of appeal as raised by the applicant in its application for leave to appeal.
- The applicant seeks leave to appeal the Deputy Ombud’s ruling firstly on the ground that “by not including information about the court ruling in (the first article) the respondent is … not in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.” The argument is that “a competent court of law had made a ruling regarding the relevant facts contained in part 1 of the series. Therefore, the press code and ethical obligations required the respondent to put these facts to its audience in the same article” (and not in the second one). The Deputy Ombud dealt with this aspect fully. It can only be emphasized that it was indicated that there was to be a second article in respect of the same matter; the two articles could not have been read in silos; moreover, the second article was published only the next day. The nexus and the continuity between the two articles was therefore not only created, but also maintained. This negated any suggestion that the respondent was unfairly and unreasonably withholding information that was in favour of the applicant in the court proceedings.
- The second ground of appeal is couched as follows: “The deputy press ombudsman ruled that any reference to familial relations between directors of Moepathutse and President Cyril Ramaphosa and his adviser Sydney Mufamadi and reference to Moepathutse as politically exposed ‘is therefore justifiable in the circumstances and is not in breach of either Clause 1.2 or Clause 1.3 of the Press Code.’” It is not correct, as the applicant argues, that it should have been mentioned that Mr Sydney Mufamadi was not involved in the saga. Here too the Ruling dealt with the matter. I add that there was no need for the respondent to go that far, or to mention that “there was no evidence to suggest any interference in the procurement process.” This is because once no mention is made of undue interference, it must be taken that there was none. It is noteworthy that the applicant says that there is no objection to the phrase “politically exposed”. This means that the phrase per se does not convey impropriety or undue influence. It may be true that providing such context or information could not have harmed the respondent; but there was no obligation to do so.
- In light of the above, I am afraid the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success on appeal; the application is therefore dismissed.
Dated this 30th day of October 2025
B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel
