Collins Letsoalo vs Sunday Times
Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August
20 February 2026
Finding: Complaint 000446
Publication (print and online): Sunday Times
Date of publication: 14 December 2025
Headline:
RAF blows millions in dodgy call centre deal
Author: Sabelo Skiti
Particulars
This finding is based on a written complaint by Mr Collins Letsoalo; a written response on behalf of Sunday Times by journalist Mr Sabelo Skiti and legal advisor Mr Robin Wheatley; and a written reply by Mr Letsoalo.
Complaint
The complainant submits that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8, 10.1 and 10.2 of the Press Code.
- Summary of article
1.1. According to the article, senior Road Accident Fund (RAF) officials terminated an internally operated call centre that cost R25 million a year to run and replaced it with an external service provider, Alteram Solutions, that cost R199m over 13 months.
1.1.1. It claims that the contract was concluded outside of normal procurement processes in 2023 and was extended in 2024 without inviting competitive bids.
1.2. The RAF justified the new customer relationship management (CRM) system on the grounds that the old call centre was not fit for purpose and that a survey showed that customers were dissatisfied with it.
1.2.1. However, an anonymous RAF insider dismissed this justification in a letter to Parliament and described it as “simply not true”.
1.2.2. He provided key performance indicators that showed, among others, that calls answered increased from 320 000 to 436 000 and that annual surveys indicated overall satisfaction ratings of “good” to “excellent”.
1.2.3. The insider also reportedly lamented the cost of the outsourced CRM system and said the RAF previously spent a fraction of this amount on the old call centre. He further claimed that it was “fraught with issues” such as unanswered calls and conflicting information.
1.2.4. Another RAF insider claimed that a manager responsible for the old call centre had attempted to modernise it, but that this was shut down by RAF leadership. Instead, he said, the same service was now provided by an external party.
1.3. According to the article, documents relating to the procurement also show significant irregularities in the processes that were followed.
1.3.1. It claims that senior RAF officials, including those in Letsoalo’s office, “hastily compiled and approved a memorandum” asking the RAF’s bid adjudication committee (BAC) to ratify the process for participating in a Department of Employment & Labour (DEL) contract with Alteram.
1.3.2. This request – “which included a business case” – was compiled and signed off within a 24-hour period by the RAF’s stakeholder relations management (SRM) department.
1.3.3. However, documents reportedly show that Letsoalo had already written to then DEL director-general Thobile Lamati in November and December 2022 for permission to participate in that department’s contract with Alteram.
1.3.4. Letsoalo did so using National Treasury regulation 16A6.6, which allows an accounting officer to participate in another department’s competitively bid contract, “provided conditions are exactly the same and written approval is granted”.
1.3.5. According to the article, this suggests that a decision to contract Alteram had already been taken in 2022 and that the February 2023 internal processes were an attempt to create the illusion of a process.
1.3.6. BAC request compiler Tshisikhawe Ndou reportedly pointed out that the decision to participate in the process should have been led by the BAC.
1.3.7. CFO Bernice Potgieter, one of the executives who reviewed and approved the business case, later chaired the BAC meeting that ratified the request and approved the price. She was placed on precautionary suspension in November 2025, along with acting CEO Phathu Lukhwareni and acting chief governance officer Mampe Kumalo.
1.3.8. The article adds that, although some of these executives played a role in approving the participation contract, it is not clear whether their suspensions are related to this matter.
1.3.9. The RAF said it could not confirm any information about the study that led the RAF to the DEL and referred the publication to the suspended executives. It also said it could not confirm whether the contract extension was made in line with Treasury guidelines and again referred the publication to those executives.
1.4. According to the article, the RAF’s participation in the contract ultimately cost it R15.3m a month – “a sharp increase from the R25m a year to run the previous call centre”. In addition, the RAF continued to pay the employment costs of the agents who continued working at the old call centre.
1.4.1. Megan Ross, a director at Alteram’s lawyers, Nicqui Galaktiou Incorporated, said that the RAF’s decision to partner with Alteram yielded “remarkable results, with a substantial increase in claimant engagement”.
1.4.2. She referred to the RAF’s annual report for the financial year that ended in 2025, which showed that the contact centre had 576 009 interactions and a 99.1% resolution rate – an increase from the old call centre in 2023, which recorded a 95.5% resolution rate.
1.5. The article further reported that it had established that the RAF has referred its contract with Alteram to police for criminal investigation.
1.5.1. It added that the RAF has been “rocked by instability and allegations of malfeasance, maladministration and corruption centring around Letsoalo and his leadership team”. These allegations led to Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) establishing an ad hoc inquiry into the fund.
1.5.2. This inquiry reportedly revealed several irregularities, including Letsoalo’s insistence that the RAF not be audited using accepted accounting standards. The fund’s liabilities are now believed to be more than R500 billion.
- Arguments
Collins Letsoalo
2.1. Complaint one: According to the complainant, the article is sensational and the headline is misleading and not related to the content of the article.
2.2. Complaint two: He objects to the use of a photograph of him on the grounds that he has nothing to do with the article.
2.3. Complaint three: He claims that the article is full of inaccuracies and that it erroneously links matters that are not linked. For example, he says, no RAF executive was suspended for the contract and states that the procurement and the extension were audited by the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) without any adverse findings.
2.4. Complaint four: The complainant submits that the article gives the impression that using Treasury Regulation 16A.6.6 violates the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) or procurement regulations by omitting to quote it.
2.4.1. He adds that this is done under circumstances where the headline refers to a “dodgy … deal”. However, he says, there is nothing in the article that indicates anything dodgy.
2.5. Complaint five: The complainant submits that the article inaccurately refers to him as “suspended CEO”.
2.5.1. He also contends that the comparison between the R25m a year that it cost to run the old call centre and the R199m that it cost to run the new system over 13 months is not fair and just because their services are incomparable.
2.6. Complaint six: The complainant states that no comment was requested from him or any of the other individuals mentioned in the article. He believes that this was deliberate to ensure that an “unbalanced article” was published.
2.7. Complaint seven: He submits that the article insinuates criminality by merely stating that the RAF has opened a criminal case. However, he says, it does not mention what criminality was committed and by whom.
2.8. Complaint eight: He also complains that reference is made to a Scopa inquiry without any reference to responses made by the RAF executive and board. He adds that no finding was ever made by anybody on the contract in question.
2.8.1. He maintains that a complaint by a “former manager” cannot be taken as fact or truth without any comment from those mentioned.
Sunday Times
2.9. In reply, the respondent states that – except for the issues raised in the complaint – the facts in the article have not been disputed. The publication adds that it used several highly confidential documents and sources to draft the article.
2.10. Complaint one: The respondent denies that the article is sensational and that the headline is misleading and not related to the content of the article.
2.10.1. Instead, it contends, the article addresses matters of public interest in that the RAF is a state-created body funded by a compulsory fuel levy and entrusted with administering billions of rands in compensation to victims of road accidents.
2.10.2. Reporting on its operations is therefore in line with the media’s constitutional watchdog role and promotes transparency, accountability and informed public debate on the functioning of an important public institution.
2.10.3. The respondent goes on to say that there is no rule in the Press Code per se that prevents sensational reporting. What matters is “whether the sensational aspects distort facts, mislead readers, or unjustifiably harm someone’s reputation”.
2.10.4. In this instance, it submits, the article is not sensational nor does it mislead readers.
2.10.5. The publication maintains that the article fully addresses why it suggests that the call centre deal is “dodgy”. It notes that the Oxford Online dictionary defines the word as dishonest or unreliable, while the Collins English dictionary defines it as a “cunning or deceitful trick”.
2.10.6. Neither of these definitions, it says, suggest illegality “or anything further”. It adds that, colloquially, it understands “dodgy” to mean nothing more than unsavoury or untrustworthy and suggests that the ordinary reader would draw a similar conclusion on reading the article as a whole.
2.11. Complaint two: Regarding the complainant’s objection to the use of a photograph of him on the grounds that he “has nothing to do with the article”, the respondent contends that this is incorrect.
2.11.1. It says there are several instances in the article where his role in the contracting process is addressed and refers to letters he wrote to the DEL’s director-general in November and December 2022 for permission to participate in its contract with Alteram.
2.11.2. The publication also states that Letsoalo was CEO of the RAF at the time the contract was concluded. As such, it says, he was the Accounting Officer.
2.12. Complaint three: In response to the claim that the article contains inaccuracies and links matters that are not related, the respondent submits that the complainant does not identify these inaccuracies nor does he indicate where matters are erroneously linked.
2.12.1. Regarding the suspension of the RAF executives, the publication says that the article expressly states that “it is not clear whether the suspensions are related” to the Alteram contract. It submits that at no stage is there a definite statement that the RAF executives were suspended because of this contract.
2.12.2. The publication further argues that the complainant’s submission that AGSA audited the procurement and extension without any adverse findings does not detract from the issues raised in its article.
2.12.3. For example, it says, the letter that Letsoalo sent to the DEL to request to participate in the Alteram contract “preceded the creation of the requisite internal documents” and notes that the request – “which included a business case” – was compiled and signed off within a 24-hour period by the RAF’s SRM department.
2.12.4. The publication points out that Letsoalo’s complaint does not take issue with these statements.
2.13. Complaint four: The respondent disputes the claim that the article gives the impression that using Treasury Regulation 16A6.6 violates the PFMA. He also takes issue with the claim that there is nothing in the article that indicates anything “dodgy”.
2.13.1. It points out that the article states: “Crucially the documents show that while this internal process was under way, Letsoalo had already written to the then DEL director-general Thobile Lamati in November and December 2022 for permission to participate in that department’s contract with Alteram. This was done using regulation 16A6.6 of the National Treasury’s regulations, which allows an accounting officer to participate in another department’s competitively bid contract, provided conditions are exactly the same and written approval is granted.” (emphasis added by respondent)
2.13.2. It submits that this passage juxtaposes the fact that Letsoalo used the provisions of regulation 16A.6.6 even before the internal process commenced – “[p]roverbially placing the cart before the horse”.
2.13.3. The publication goes on to deny that there is nothing in the article that indicates anything dodgy.
2.13.4. It says the BAC was supposed to lead this process whereas a decision to contract Alteram had been taken in 2022 already and quotes from its article: “BAC request compiler Tshisikhawe Ndou, a senior manager in the SRM department, explicitly noted that the decision to participate and the initiation of the process should have been led by the BAC.”
2.13.5. The article also refers to internal documents for the implementation of the new system that were compiled and approved in February and March 2023 – several months after Letsoalo had approached the DEL for permission to participate in the contract (see point 2.13.1).
2.13.6. The respondent goes on to maintain that, contrary to the complainant’s claim, the article notes that participation is allowed in law. However, it says, the problem with the contract was not the participation, but the processes that led to that participation.
2.13.7. It refers to the relevant part of its article in this regard: “The contract, which was concluded outside of normal procurement processes in 2023, was extended last year for 24 months, again without inviting competitive bids, at a cost of R307m.”
2.13.8. The respondent submits that the above facts “seemingly indicate something ‘untrustworthy’ or ‘unreliable’”.
2.14. Complaint five: The respondent acknowledges that it is correct that the complainant was not the suspended CEO of the RAF at the time it published its article.
2.14.1. However, it states, Letsoalo was CEO of the RAF at the time of his suspension and was not totally divorced from the issues raised in the article. It notes, though, that Letsoalo’s employment contract lapsed whilst he was suspended.
2.14.2. The publication further maintains that it is not incorrect to submit that he was the suspended CEO of the RAF and believes that this oversight is not material when the article is read as a whole nor does this mislead the public. In the circumstances, it says, it was reasonable to make the statement that it did in the article.
2.14.3. In response to the complaint that the comparison between R25m and R199m is not fair and just in that the services cannot be compared, the respondent submits that there was a substantial increase in the cost of the new system.
2.14.4. It states that its article looks at what RAF insiders have said regarding the new system and compares it to the response received from Alteram’s attorney, who maintains that the RAF greatly benefited from the Alteram contract.
2.14.5. The publication submits that the reader is able to contrast this response with the statements by the RAF insiders. It says this allows readers to draw their own conclusions.
2.15. Complaint six: The respondent denies that four RAF executives were not contacted because of an inherent bias. It says that, in view of the fact that they were suspended, they were often precluded from speaking to the media.
2.15.1. The publication adds that it was only referred to the executives by the RAF on the
Saturday afternoon before publication, which made it impractical to contact them at the time.
2.15.2. It now offers a right of reply to Letsoalo and the other executives, and undertakes to
update the online version of the article “or even publish a new article based on their reply”. It points out, though, that their responses will not be treated uncritically.
2.16. Complaint seven: Regarding the complaint that the article insinuates criminality by merely mentioning that the RAF has opened a criminal case without stating what criminality was committed and by whom, the respondent states that it had established that the RAF had opened a criminal case for investigation and published this.
2.16.1. It refers to the relevant part of the article: “The Sunday Times also established that RAF has referred this contract to police for criminal investigation.” It states that the reasonable reader can distinguish between being investigated for a crime and having committed a crime.
2.17. Complaint eight: The respondent then addresses the complainant’s objection to the reference in the article to a Scopa inquiry without including any responses from the RAF executive and board.
2.17.1. The publication replies that, before the reference to Scopa, the article states that the RAF “has been rocked by instability and allegations of malfeasance, maladministration and corruption centring around Letsoalo and his leadership team”.
2.17.2. The article then continues: “These allegations led to Scopa establishing an ad hoc inquiry into the fund. The inquiry revealed a host of irregularities, including Letsoalo’s insistence that the RAF not be audited using accepted accounting standards. This included allowing the fund to classify a large number of claims as ‘in transit’ rather than immediate liabilities, a deliberate strategy estimated to understate the fund’s liabilities, which are now believed to be more than R500bn.”
2.17.3. The respondent submits that some of these allegations are addressed in a Special Investigating Unit (SIU) presentation to Scopa (Annexure A).
2.17.4. It maintains that it is disingenuous to suggest that its article should contain all the allegations made at Scopa and the responses in order to constitute fair reporting.
2.17.5. It further points out that it understands that the Scopa inquiry on the RAF has not been concluded and that references to those proceedings in relation to the allegations and responses “is likely to be incomplete in certain circumstances”.
2.18. In conclusion, the respondent states that, considering the above, the article is not in breach of the Press Code at all and, in particular, not of the clauses referred to in the complaint. It maintains that the article is balanced and fair.
2.18.1. In the circumstances, it says, the complaint should be dismissed.
Collins Letsoalo
2.19. In his response, the complainant submits that natural justice requires that individuals named in an article must be provided a right of reply. However, he says, the respondent did not offer him such an opportunity despite claiming that he was part of its story.
2.19.1. He contends that justifying this omission on the grounds that the RAF responded on a Saturday does not remove the obligation of the publication to seek a response from those mentioned. He adds that offering a right of reply only after a complaint is lodged is inadequate and believes that it suggests “fault” on the part of the publication.
2.20. The complainant again submits that it is misleading to use a photograph of him in an article that alleges that the RAF wasted millions without providing any evidence of wrongdoing. He says this suggests he was involved in a questionable deal and affects his integrity and dignity.
2.20.1. He maintains that there was no misuse of funds and that all the RAF’s actions complied with Treasury regulations.
2.21. The complainant further submits that participation in a contract simply means “engaging in an existing contract”. He says that the RAF and DEL agencies have collaborated in the social benefits sector over time and contends that this is standard practice.
2.21.1. He also maintains that approvals made within 24 hours indicate efficiency “when faced with a collapsed complaint system and inundated with Ministerial and Parliamentary enquiries”. He argues that complaints from those affected cannot make a deal “dodgy”.
2.21.2. He claims that the sources of the publication include Kenneth Brown, whom he describes as “the RAFs disputed interim Chairperson”,[1] and alleges that he is known for offering information to journalists.
2.22. The complainant points out that the article notes that the RAF referred the publication to the suspended executives for comment, but says not all the relevant executives were contacted.
2.22.1. He states that the publication was obliged to request their comments even though – apart from the acting CEO – suspended executives cannot speak to the media.
2.23. The complainant reiterates that the article is misleading. He again states that there was no improper transaction nor any irregularities in the call centre contract or its procurement process.
2.23.1. He says that the expenditure reflects payment for additional services, “which does not constitute wasteful or unproductive spending”.
2.23.2. He claims that the use of the word “blows” conveys an inaccurate impression that identical services were purchased and says that this erroneously suggests that the RAF previously operated a 300-seat call centre with equivalent capabilities.
2.23.3. He adds that to blow money means that funds were spent carelessly or wastefully – and often on unnecessary items. He says this gives the impression that the RAF did so, without giving it a chance to provide a response.
2.24. The complainant also objects to the subheading, “Tender processes side-stepped …”, and says that this is stated as a fact, not an allegation, and implies that the RAF bypassed tender procedures. However, he says, this action followed Treasury Regulation 16A.6.6.
2.24.1. He adds that this method was simply another form of procurement – not an attempt to sidestep processes.
2.24.2. He again states that participating in a contract does not mean avoiding tender procedures and maintains that these were followed in line with Treasury regulations and procurement rules. He adds that all steps were audited and that supporting evidence was reviewed before any audit findings were made.
2.24.3. He provides details about various internal audits in support of his argument and says the publication could have confirmed this with the RAF if it had asked for the relevant information.
2.25. The complainant then proceeds to systematically address the response of the publication to his complaint. However, I will selectively refer to this part of his response as most of the aspects raised in this section have already been referred to elsewhere in his complaint.
2.26. The complainant denies that he drafted any memorandum or letter from the RAF regarding procurement.
2.26.1. He says that such documents are prepared by others and then presented to him for his signature; he adds that the letter was internal.
2.27. The complainant maintains that participation in a contract is like any procurement process, and might be approved or rejected by the state entity or contractor in question.
2.27.1. He adds that it sometimes makes sense to gauge interest before going through a lengthy BAC process only to face rejection. He states that this in fact occurred during the later stages of this contract when the DEL rejected participation in the extension.
2.27.2. He claims that nothing prevented parallel processes nor was there anything questionable about such processes.
2.28. The complainant denies that he does not dispute the facts in the article. On the contrary, he says, he disputes all the facts and dismisses the article as “patently false”.
2.28.1. He further denies that there is any document – “highly confidential or otherwise” – that supports the allegation that there was any dodgy deal or that money was blown.
2.28.2. In fact, he says, the documents and reports indicate that the call centre procurement was one of the best decisions made by the RAF’s management. He says that complaints by lawyers are linked to monies reaching claimants after having already been paid by the RAF.
2.29. The complainant repeats his objection to the use of his photograph on the grounds that the article concerns the RAF and not him (see point 2.20). Secondly, he says he is no longer with the RAF. And, thirdly, he says it is incorrect to describe him as a suspended CEO.
2.30. The complainant again states that signing a memorandum within 24 hours “from a functionary in my office or at RAF” is standard procedure and should not be regarded as inappropriate (see point 2.21.1).
2.30.1. He submits that it is common for documents that require urgent attention to be presented to him during meetings and points out that the function of stakeholder relations was under his direct supervision.
2.30.2. He adds that the new CRM system accommodates 300 seats and offers additional functionalities. As a result, he believes, it is misleading to simply compare costs without taking into account these factors.
2.30.3. He believes it is irresponsible to suggest that funds were misused without substantive evidence, “particularly when such claims rest solely on the comparison of two fundamentally different expenditures”.
2.30.4. He adds that the internal cost centre was not disbanded nor dissolved. Instead, it was restructured to serve as “a third tier of call resolution staffed by subject matter experts”.
2.31. The complainant further states that he did not initiate any process with the DEL. He says that Maria Rambauli, an expert in customer experience, initiated discussion with the DEL to share experiences and costs on matters of mutual interest.
2.31.1. He reiterates that he is not involved in initiating procurement processes nor does he participate in BAC meetings.
2.31.2. He adds that these processes were audited and that all relevant information was made available to AGSA, which did not identify any irregularities or misappropriation of funds.
2.31.3. He says that it is inappropriate for the publication to make assumptions and arrive at conclusions without seeking any clarification or obtaining a response. He contends that this suggests malice and a predetermined narrative.
2.32. The complainant further states that it is unclear why there was “pressure to rush the story” or why the publication felt that the right to respond of those mentioned in the article was unimportant.
2.32.1. The complainant claims that the publication deliberately avoided requesting responses on the grounds that “suspended executives are usually not allowed to talk to the media”.
2.32.2. He rejects what he describes as the publication’s belated offer to reply and says that this does not correct “intentional wrongdoing”.
2.33. The complainant states that it should be clear what the criminal case against the RAF involves and who is suspected of criminal conduct.
2.33.1. He says that mentioning a criminal case in this context implies wrongdoing on their part, yet they were not given an opportunity to address these allegations or investigations.
2.34. With regard to the Scopa investigation, the complainant says that this concerns the RAF – not him or his former colleagues. He says that most of the decisions questioned relate to the RAF board.
2.34.1. He adds that the SIU’s findings do not reference the contract in question and are therefore irrelevant.
2.34.2. He states that an allegation from a disgruntled employee is not factual and contends that confidential documents provided by Brown do not make the article reliable or ethical.
2.35. In conclusion, the complainant maintains that there was no evidence of a dodgy deal, misuse of funds or sidestepping of processes. For these reasons, he believes his complaint should be upheld.
- Discussion
3.1. Complaint one: The complainant does not substantiate his claim that the article is sensational. By this, he presumably means that it “cause[s] (events, esp. in newspaper reports) to seem more vivid, shocking, etc., than they really are”.[2]
3.1.1. However, the respondent rightly points out that the Press Code does not make any specific pronouncements in this regard (point 2.10.3).
3.1.2. The clause that comes closest to addressing this aspect of the complaint is Clause 1.2, which prohibits the distortion or exaggeration of facts that result in a lack of balance in an article. This aspect will be addressed elsewhere in my Discussion (see under points 3.3, 3.5 and 3.7).
3.1.3. The complaint that the headline is misleading and that it is not related to the content of the article revolves around the use of the words “blows millions” and “dodgy”.
3.1.4. Regarding the words “blows millions”, it must be emphasised that it is not the role of the Press Ombud to determine whether the expenditure on the new CRM system was justified.
3.1.5. The role of the Press Ombud is limited to making a finding on whether the headline sufficiently meets the requirement of the Press Code that it reasonably reflects the content of the article.
3.1.6. In this case, the words “blows millions” does meet this obligation. For example, the article reports on a letter to Parliament by an RAF insider who is highly critical of the costs of the new CRM system and states that the RAF spent a fraction of this on the previous call centre (point 1.2.3).
3.1.7. The article reports that the previous call centre cost R25m a year to run and that the new system cost R199m to run over 13 months (point 1.1).
3.1.8. Accordingly, the use of the words “blows millions” in the headline is a reasonable reflection of the content of the article and therefore sufficiently complies with Clause 10.1 of the Press Code.
3.1.9. With regard to the word “dodgy”, the explanations offered by the Collins English Dictionary: Millennium Edition generally corresponds with those offered by the respondent (point 2.10.5). Among others, it refers to the word as meaning “risky”, “unreliable” or tricky”.[3]
3.1.10. This supports the contention of the respondent that the word does not imply any illegal act (point 2.10.6), but merely refers to conduct that may be open to question. In this regard, the article provides sufficient grounds to justify the use of the word “dodgy” in the headline.
3.1.11. For example, the article claims that the contract with Alteram was concluded outside of normal procurement processes in 2023 and that it was extended in 2024 without inviting competitive bids (point 1.1.1).
3.1.12. The article also claims that there are significant irregularities in the procurement processes that followed (point 1.3).
3.1.13. It is not for the Press Ombud to make a pronouncement on whether these claims are correct. The role of the Press Ombud is confined to establishing whether the ethical obligations prescribed in the Press Code have been followed.
3.1.14. In this instance, the issue is whether the headline is a reasonable reflection of the content of the article.
3.1.15. Based on the claims that there were certain process irregularities related to the Alteram contract, the headline sufficiently complies with Clause 10.1 of the Press Code.
3.1.16. These claims about process irregularities also provide sufficient grounds to justify the subheading, “Tender processes side-stepped …”. In this regard, too, there is therefore no breach of Clause 10.1 of the Press Code.
3.1.17. The key requirement of this clause is that a headline, or in this case subheading, must reasonably reflect the content of the article. The Press Ombud is not expected to establish whether the tender processes were indeed circumvented. Deciding on such a matter falls outside the role of the Press Ombud.
3.2. Complaint two: The complainant objects to a photograph of him that was used to accompany the article on the grounds that he did not play any part in the “deal” with Alteram (point 2.2).
3.2.1. He adds that he did not draft any memorandum or letter from the RAF regarding procurement and says that such documents are prepared by others and then presented to him to sign (points 2.26 and 2.26.1).
3.2.2. According to the article, though, he wrote letters to the DEL’s director-general in November and December 2022 for permission to participate in its contract with Alteram (points 1.3.3 and 2.13.1).
3.2.3. However, what is not in dispute is that the complainant was CEO of the RAF at the time that the fund initiated and concluded its contract with Alteram.[4] This provides sufficient reason to justify the use of his photograph.
3.2.4. Moreover, as CEO of the RAF the complainant’s key responsibilities included ensuring improved customer focus and operational effectiveness as well as providing leadership in capacity building.[5]
3.2.5. In view of the aforegoing, there is no substance in his claim that the use of his photograph is in breach of Clause 10.2 of the Press Code.
3.3. Complaint three: There is also little merit in the complainant’s argument that the article incorrectly links the suspension of certain RAF executives to the Alteram contract.
3.3.1. On the contrary, the article states quite explicitly that the reasons for the suspensions are not clear even though some of the executives played a role in approving the participation contract (see points 1.3.8 and 2.12.1).
3.3.2. The complainant further notes in this complaint that the procurement and extension were audited by AGSA without any adverse findings (points 2.3 and 2.31.2).
3.3.3. Nevertheless, the publication is entitled to raise concerns that it believes to be in the public interest (see points 1.3.1 to 1.3.3 for examples). The RAF is a national public entity and is responsible for providing cover to all road users in South Africa.[6]
3.3.4. Accordingly, there is no breach of Clause 1.1 or Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
3.4. Complaint four: There is no substance in the complaint that the article gives the impression that using Treasury Regulation 16A.6.6 violates the PFMA or any procurement regulations.
3.4.1. As the respondent points out, the article specifically reports that this particular regulation “allows an accounting officer to participate in another department’s competitively bid contract, provided conditions are exactly the same and written approval is granted” (points 1.3.4 and 2.13.1).
3.4.2. The article therefore clearly does not cast any aspersions on the use of the Treasury regulation that the RAF relied on to make its request to participate in the Alteram contract.
3.4.3. What the article does question, though, is the sequence of events involved in the process followed by the RAF. In particular, it contends that the provisions of regulation 16A.6.6 were used even before the internal process began (point 2.13.2).
3.4.4. There are therefore no grounds to support the complaint that the article gives the impression that the use of regulation 16A.66 in itself violates the PMFA or any other procurement regulations.
3.4.5. Regarding the complainant’s denial that there is anything questionable in the article, the respondent points out that the BAC was supposed to have made the decision to participate in the Alteram contract and to initiate the process.
3.4.6. Ndou, a senior manager in the SRM department, confirmed that the BAC was supposed to have led the process and this was duly reported in the article (points 1.3.6 and 2.13.4).
3.4.7. Ndou’s confirmation provides sufficient reason for the publication to view the process that the RAF embarked on as open to question – and, hence, as “dodgy” – despite Letsoalo’s denial that there was anything that prevented parallel processes (point 2.27.2).
3.4.8. Any suggestion that the publication is in breach of Clause 1.1 or Clause 1.3 of the Press Code in relation to this aspect of the article must therefore be dismissed.
3.5. Complaint five: The complaint that the article incorrectly refers to Letsoalo as “suspended CEO” is, in the context of the primary focus of the article, of limited significance. The fact remains that he was indeed suspended as RAF CEO in June 2025.
3.5.1. Moreover, the article does not suggest that he was suspended because of the Alteram contract. On the contrary, as noted earlier, the report states that it is not clear if there is in fact a link between his suspension and this contract.
3.5.2. It is therefore unclear how mistakenly referring to the complainant in the article as a suspended CEO impacts negatively on his dignity.
3.5.3. At worst, this error can be deemed to be an oversight. To attribute any malice to it would be quite a leap in logic.
3.5.4. Accordingly, there is little merit in the complaint that there is a breach of either Clause 1.1 or Clause 1.2 of the Press Code in this regard.
3.5.5. Regarding the complaint about the comparison between the costs of the old call centre and the new system, it must be noted that it does not fall within the ambit of the Press Ombud to make a determination on whether the differences between the services provided by the old call centre and those of the new system justify the increase in the costs of running the latter.
3.5.6. On the one hand, Alteram’s attorney claims that there was a significant improvement in the performance and services offered by the new system (points 1.4.1 and 1.4.2). On the other hand, some RAF insiders dispute the efficacy of the new system and express disquiet about how much it costs to run (points 1.2.1 to 1.2.4).
3.5.7. These divergent views are adequately reflected in the article. There is therefore sufficient merit in the respondent’s argument that it provides the views of both sides of the argument to enable readers to make up their own minds.
3.5.8. By so doing, it presents the information at its disposal fairly and without any misrepresentation. The article thus sufficiently complies with both Clause 1.1 and Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
3.6. Complaint six: There is merit in the complaint that the respondent did not request comment from the complainant.
3.6.1. The respondent’s explanation – that it did not contact any of the suspended executives because, as such, they were often precluded from speaking to the media (point 2.15) – is unsatisfactory.
3.6.2. While this may well be true generally, there is no reason why the publication could not have contacted Letsoalo directly and established first-hand that this was indeed the case in this instance as well.
3.6.3. As it happens, the complainant’s contract with the RAF had already expired in August 2025 – more than three months before the article in question was published.
3.6.4. And the respondent’s argument that it was only referred to the suspended executives on the Saturday afternoon – the day before publication – does not hold water either (point 2.15.1). Even then it did not make any attempt to offer Letsoalo a right of reply.
3.6.5. This oversight is inexcusable in view of the fact that the article raises questions about the specific role of the complainant in the RAF’s request to participate in the Alteram contract.
3.6.6. And offering him a right to reply only after he lodged a complaint with the Press Council is a belated attempt to rectify a situation which should not have arisen in the first place.
3.6.7. In light of the above, the article is deemed to be in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.
3.7. Complaint seven: There are insufficient grounds for the complaint that the article insinuates criminality by mentioning that the RAF opened a criminal case into the Alteram contract without specifying the nature of the criminality or identifying the suspects (points 2.7 and 2.33.1).
3.7.1. The article simply notes as a matter of fact that “RAF has referred this contract to police for criminal investigation” (points 1.5 and 2.16.1). This does not necessarily suggest that there is indeed any criminality on the part of anyone.
3.7.2. As the respondent notes, a reasonable reader can make a distinction between an individual who is being investigated for a crime and an individual who has been convicted of a crime.
3.7.3. Accordingly, there is no breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
3.8. Complaint eight: The complaint that the article refers to a Scopa inquiry without reflecting the responses of the RAF executive and board is presumably made in relation to Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.
3.8.1. This aspect of the complaint has already been dealt with adequately in relation to Letsoalo under Complaint six (see point 3.6 above).
3.8.2. Furthermore, the complainant’s argument that “no finding was ever made by anybody on the contract in question” (point 2.8) is a red herring.
3.8.3. Nowhere does the article claim that Scopa or any other body made a finding on the Alteram contract. The article is clearly referring to an ongoing inquiry into the RAF by Scopa (point 1.5.1). As such, Scopa has not yet made any findings.
3.8.4. Although the word “revealed” is not qualified in the article, it is common knowledge that the Scopa inquiry is still under way because the matter has received considerable attention in the media over many months.
3.8.5. This aspect of the article is therefore not deemed to be in breach of either Clause 1 or Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
3.9. The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.7 of the Press Code has been adequately dealt with in relation to the other clauses of the code referred to in the Discussion above.
3.9.1. In brief, the respondent spoke to several sources about the RAF’s participation in the Alteram contract – both to those in favour and to those opposed to it – and refers as well to a letter to Parliament by someone it identifies as an RAF insider. In addition, the article consulted certain documents relating to the procurement of the contract.
- Findings
Complaint one: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is dismissed for the reasons set out in 3.3 to 3.3.4, 3.5 to 3.5.8 and 3.7 to 3.7.3 of my Discussion.
The complaint that the headline is in breach of Clause 10.1 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.1.3 to 3.1.17 of my Discussion.
Complaint two: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 10.2 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.2.3 to 3.2.5 of my Discussion.
Complaint three: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 or Clause 1.2 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.3 to 3.3.4 of my Discussion.
Complaint four: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 or Clause 1.3 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.4 to 3.4.8 of my Discussion.
Complaint five: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 or Clause 1.2 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.5 to 3.5.8 of my Discussion.
Complaint six: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 is upheld for the reasons set out in points 3.6 to 3.6.7 of my Discussion.
Complaint seven: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.7 to 3.7.3 of my Discussion.
Complaint eight: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 or Clause 1.2 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.8.2 to 3.8.5 of my Discussion.
Firstly, Sunday Times is required to publish an apology in print and online to the complainant for breaching Clause 1.8.
Secondly, the respondent should give the complainant the right to reply in print and online. If there is a dispute between the parties about the content of the reply, this should be referred to me for settlement.
Thirdly, the apology and the right of reply should be approved by me prior to publication.
Fourthly, the respondent must update the online article and should publish a note under the headline: “NOTE: This article has been updated. See Editor’s Note below, including an apology to Collins Lestoalo.” The Editor’s Note should state when and how the article has been updated, and should include the full apology to Letsoalo as directed above as well as his right of reply.
Fifthly, the update to the online article 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 in print and online on Sunday Times’ landing page for 24 hours as well as on all its platforms where the article was published;
- be published in print and online with a headline including the words “apology” and “Collins Letsoalo” or “Letsoalo”;
- be published online on the landing page with a link to the original 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.
Appeals procedure
The Complaints Procedure stipulates 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
Tyrone August
Deputy Press Ombudsman
20 February 2026
[1] For the record, the SA Government News Agency unequivocally refers to Brown as the interim chairperson of the RAF board. See https://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/creecy-announces-interim-raf-board-appointment
[2] See Collins English Dictionary: Millennium Edition, page 1400.
[3] Collins English Dictionary: Millennium Edition, page 457.
[4] For the record, the complainant was appointed to the position in August 2020 and his contract expired in August 2025.
[5] See the advertisement in 2020 for the RAF CEO position at https://www.news24.com/citypress/sponsored/featured-job-vacancy-ceo-road-accident-fund-20200422
[6] See https://www.raf.co.za/About-Us/Pages/profile.aspx