Dr N Mbude-Mehana and Rev Vukile Mehana vs Sunday Times
BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA
In the matter between:
Dr N Mbude-Mehana and Rev Vukile Mehana Applicants
and
Sunday Times Respondent
Matter No: 32131
DECISION ON AN APPLICATIONN FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
- This is an application for leave to appeal launched by Dr N Mbude-Mehana and Rev Dr Vukile Mehana (applicants) against the Ruling of the Press Ombud dated 4 November 2025. The Ruling was on a complaint that had been lodged by the applicants against the Sunday Times (respondent) in print and on TimesLive. In the meantime, criminal charges were laid by Dr Mbude-Mehana; it was only after the criminal charges were withdrawn that the matter was accepted by the Public Advocate.
- The documentation filed was unnecessarily voluminous not least because some documents were duplicated, apart from being couched in an unnecessarily detailed manner. The Press Ombud is complimented for diligently ploughing through these pages to crystalize some important points. What follows is a summary of the dispute as accurately articulated by the Ombud in his Ruling under the heading “Background.”
- At all material times, Rev Mehana was the executive chairperson of Sizwe IT which was a subsidiary of a listed company; he was also a former chaplain-general of the ANC. Dr Mbude-Mehana was the head of the Department of Education in the Eastern Cape and currently in a senior position in the National Department of Basic Education. They are a couple, married in 2022.
- It is clear from their respective history that they are both public figures; indeed, it appears that their wedding was covered by the media.
- It is common cause that there was a business relationship between Sizwe IT and the Eastern Cape Department of Basic Education for which Dr Mbude-Mehana once worked.
- The Ruling captured the depth and width of the background as follows:
“7. Sunday Times reported that the Mehanas are being ‘investigated by the Hawks for their involvement in a disastrous R500m school tablets contract’. The publication further reported that the couple got married just months after two payments totalling R330m were made to Sizwe and that the payments were negotiated when Mbude-Mehana was head of department in 2021 and 2022.
- It is common cause that Mbude-Mehana was suspended by the Eastern Cape Premier in April 2022 (albeit apparently for reasons unrelated to the tenders). She has since resigned and later joined the national department of basic education as a deputy director-general.”
- A series of articles were written about the business transactions and monies paid by the Eastern Cape education department to Sizwe IT. Generally speaking, the applicants believed that the articles were sensational, inaccurate and unfair. The Ruling divided the complaints into four categories which it dealt with seriatim. It upheld some complaints, while dismissing others. The Ombud held that there was a breach of clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code in some instances, and then imposed a sanction. He determined that the transgressions were Tier 2 (serious). He reprimanded the respondent and ordered an update in the form of a correction. The applicants want to appeal the dismissal of some complaints and also feel that the sanction was too lenient. I will therefore only deal with those complaints as well as the sanction in determining whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal, which the applicant must show in order to get the requested leave. I indicate in advance that I am not going to have regard to any documentation that was unearthed only after the Ruling was made and which was therefore not placed before the Ombud. Doing so would offend the principle that matters must reach finality and in an expeditious a manner as possible – the central mandate of the Code.
- In their application for leave to appeal, which is being opposed by the respondent, the applicants raise certain points. I deal with them briefly.
- They argue that the Ombud blindly accepted the respondent’s reliance on the letter by the Hawks which said that there were some criminal investigations against them. They say the Ombud “glibly accepted this letter at face value.” In this respect, they now argued expo facto that the letter was not legitimate. The point here is that the respondent never conveyed to the reader that the applicants were guilty; all the article did was to indicate that there was some suspicion of wrongdoing which was being investigated. This meets the applicants’ argument that the journalist did not probe the probity of the Hawks’ letter. In any case, the respondent has referred to correspondence with the Department indicating that there was indeed some criminal investigation.
- The second alleged error on the part of the Ombud was the alleged conflation of the existence “of a Water Rental agreement and the Schools Tablets Contract.” The Ombud was aware that the two were separate, but as he put it, “the tablets were not entirely unconnected from the matters at hand”. He then went onto demonstrate the connection. Even a cursory reading would show that there was a continuous thread of a relationship amongst the same common role-players, at the centre of which was, within certain same time frames, both applicants. As the respondent says, the appellants are viewed as some of the people who brokered the Settlement Agreement that was to resolve the various issues between Sizwe and the department. The shadows of the two applicants, in one way or another, at times loomed large.
- The other argument raised is that Rev Mehana is being conflated as being an employee of Sizwe; that is, the argument tries to separate Rev Mehana with a brick wall from Sizwe. The argument amounts to a hair-splitting exercise; the truth is that it is common cause that he was the executive chair of Sizwe IT in which he held 5% of its shares; that made him a stakeholder and an average reader would not separate him from Sizwe.
- Regarding the headline “For love of money” the respondent denied that the headline suggested that the marriage was transactional. As the Ombud indicated, a cryptic headline like that must be read in conjunction with the content of the story; in fact, if one were to read it alone, it would be meaningless. When one reads it in conjunction with the content of the story, one finds, amongst others, the following facts which are not in dispute: The two got married not long after the amount of R330m was paid to a company headed by Rev Mehana by a Department formerly headed by Dr Mbude-Mehana. At best for the applicants, the headline insinuated possible conflict of interest, hence the call for investigation.
- I find nothing wrong in the manner in which the Ombud dealt with the matter. It is strange that the applicants seem surprised at this kind of reportage given the facts, and that they are both public figures.
- Regarding the sanction, I do not find it so lenient as to raise a sense of shock.
- In the circumstances, there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal; the application is therefore turned down.
Dated this 24th day of February 2026.
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel
