Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Lorgat vs Sunday World

, ,

Complaint 32380

Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud

Date of publication:

29th October 2025

Headline of publication:

“Health professionals body slaps Tlaleng Mofokeng with misconduct over Israel remarks”

Link: https://sundayworld.co.za/news/health-professionals-body-slaps-tlaleng-mofokeng-with-misconduct-over-israel-remarks/

Author: Boitumelo Kgobotlo

Particulars

  1. A complaint was lodged on 2 November 2025 by Hassen Lorgat, a social justice activist and member of several organisations including the Palestine Solidarity Alliance and the Boycott, Disinvest, Sanctions Coalition (BDS).
  2. The office of the Public Advocate (PA) declined to accept the complaint on the basis that the complainant did not have standing in the matter.
  3. Lorgat appealed the matter on 24 November, together with a request for condonation of the fact that the appeal was lodged late.
  4. I take into account the various submissions filed in this matter. At this stage, Sunday World has not been approached for their response and the only question before me is whether the complaint can be considered at all.

The article

  1. The article reports on a finding by the Health Professions Council of SA (HPCSA) against Dr Tlaleng Mofokeng, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health. She was reportedly found guilty of misconduct for publishing comments in which she swore at Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu and at an official of the organisation UN Watch.
  2. The complaint against Mofokeng was lodged by the SA Zionist Federation (SAZF), whose statement about the finding is the sole source for the report.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is that the article is in breach of the Press Code in multiple respects.
  2. Most importantly, the complaint is that the newspaper failed to get comment from Mofokeng or the HPCSA. Many other issues are raised, which would need to be considered if the matter proceeds, but for present purposes it is sufficient to highlight the core of the complaint.

Acceptance of the complaint

  1. On the issue of late submission of the appeal, Lorgat says he misunderstood the communication from the PA and thought the complaint had been accepted. It only became clear to him in a follow-up communication that this was not the case. He accepts responsibility for the error and apologises.
  2. In my view, the procedural lapse is minor and should not stand in the way of consideration of the substantive issue. I therefore condone the late submission of the appeal.

Arguments on acceptance of the complaint

  1. The PA declined to accept the complaint on the basis that Lorgat lacks standing. He drew attention to Section 1.1 of the Press Complaints Procedure, which says that complainants must have standing as one of the following:

anyone acting in their own interest;

anyone acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in his or her own name;

anyone acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons;

(or) an association acting in the interest of its members.

  1. He drew attention to the requirement to produce a motivation or proof of authority in any of the last three cases, as outlined in the General Information on complaints.
  2. Lorgat argued variously that the fact that Mofokeng engaged in a brief email exchange with him about the article constituted “soft endorsement” of his complaint by her.
  3. He argued furthermore that as the SAZF was the complainant in the HPCSA matter, it was reasonable for members of BDS to respond. There was an obligation on BDS and its members to act in solidarity with Dr Mofokeng.
  4. He also argued that the question of his right to lodge complaints had been addressed in several other matters and had been settled in his favour. He quoted extensively from some of these rulings, which I will return to.
  5. He also said the breach was of such a serious nature that it warranted attention.

Discussion

  1. The issue of standing has come up repeatedly, including in several complaints lodged by Lorgat.
  2. In “SA BDS Coalition vs SA Jewish Report” (June 2021), then ombud Carmel Rickard considered whether Lorgat had authority to act on behalf of the BDS Coalition, and whether the coalition itself was entitled to act. She decided that he was empowered through a formal letter from BDS. She also decided that BDS, contrary to the argument from the respondent, did not have to be a formally constituted body to take up the matter.  The group fell under the definition of an “association acting in the interests of its members”.
  3. Rickard’s approach was later confirmed on appeal.
  4. In the 2024 matter of “Hassen Lorgat vs The Citizen”, I ruled that Lorgat had standing on the basis that he fell under the category of being “a member, or acting in the interests of, a group of persons”.
  5. In the 2023 case of “Embassy and Ambassador of Russia to South Africa versus Daily Maverick”, press ombud Herman Scholtz dismissed an argument that a sovereign state and its representatives could not file a complaint. They were part of the news-consuming public, he ruled, and could complain.
  6. Of direct relevance here is the 2021 matter of “Ms Leigh-Ann Mathys vs EWN”, in which Scholtz, then Deputy Ombud, considered a complaint from Mathys as a private individual against a report she considered infringed the rights to privacy and dignity of a third party, Ms Gosiame Sithole, the woman at the centre of extensive reporting of the alleged birth of decuplets.
  7. While he accepted the need to avoid an overly restrictive approach, he argued that the provisions on standing should not be interpreted so liberally as to allow absolutely any complainant. This, he said, would open “the floodgates” for complaints that might be “based on hearsay, assumptions, speculation or where the implicated person themselves may have chosen not to complain”.
  8. Accordingly, he made the distinction between complaints based on general provisions of the Press Code, and those referencing individual rights. He wrote: “It is not that complainants are restricted to those who are personally involved or implicated in a report, but that complaints have to be restricted when the complainant is trying to assert personal rights of another or where the complainant lacks personal knowledge of the facts that form the subject of the complaint.”
  9. In the Mathys case, this approach led him to decline to adjudicate the complaint.
  10. In this case, Lorgat seems to believe that the matter of his personal standing to bring complaints has been comprehensively settled. This is not so.  Though he has often been successful in bringing matters of general interest before the PCSA, the question of standing does have to be addressed in every case.
  11. In the present case, he does not present any evidence that he has Mofokeng’s authority to take up the matter. He cannot simply read a brief email response to his inquiry on the article as “soft endorsement” to do so.
  12. It is also clear that her rights have potentially been infringed.
  13. It is true that the complaint is framed in terms of many general provisions of the Press Code. However, in following the approach outlined in the Mathys matter, it is not enough to look only at the clauses cited, it is necessary to look at the substance of the matter.
  14. It is clear that the present complaint is about the reporting of Mofokeng’s particular case before the PCSA. Her rights are clearly at issue, even though a general public interest is also at stake.
  15. I agree with the approach that allows considerable latitude for the filing of complaints. We should certainly err on the side of inclusion. The general purposes of the PCSA are to promote accountability in journalism and are served by as much ventilation of issues in reporting as is possible and reasonable.
  16. However, there is good reason for caution when a personal matter is at issue. It would not be reasonable for complaints to be laid on behalf of individuals without their say-so.  The individual concerned may have good reason for not wanting to pursue a matter, from an intent to take it up elsewhere to a desire to be left alone.
  17. In this case, we do not know what Mofokeng’s attitude is to the complaint. It is not reasonable for Lorgat to presume he does.

Ruling

  1. I decline to adjudicate the complaint.

Appeal

  1. 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@presscouncilsa.org.za

Ruling by
Franz Krüger, Deputy Press Ombud
10 December 2025

 

Related Posts