Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Complaint: Collins Letsoalo v Daily Maverick

, ,

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Author: Greg Ardé

Headline: SA’s next big SOE crisis threatens to blow a R400bn hole in the fiscus

Publication Date: 10 March 2026

Date lodged: 12 March 2026

Link to story: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-03-10-sas-next-big-soe-crisis-threatens-to-blow-a-r400bn-hole-in-the-fiscus/ 

Particulars

  1. This finding is based on correspondence by Collins Letsoalo, former CEO of the Road Accident Fund (RAF), and Anso Thom, deputy editor of Daily Maverick (DM).

The article

  1. The article is about problems within the Road Accident Fund (RAF), a state-owned enterprise (SOE), which could create a R400bn liability for the fiscus if it collapses.
  2. Collins Letsoalo, a RAF CEO between 2020 and 2025, is a central figure in the story.
  3. ActionSA MP Alan Beesly reportedly called him a “sociopathic CEO”, alleging that the latter faced criminal charges, “who earned R6-million a year for five years, plus a 40% performance bonus”.
  4. Later in the article, Beesly is quoted as follows: “For five years, the CEO milked the RAF with a salary of R10-million a year, including incentives, and he collapsed the RAF. The board did nothing despite various adverse AG reports. The impact on the fiscus is astounding.”
  5. It also mentions that he was inter alia implicated in an investigation into a R79-million lease in Johannesburg.

The complaint

  1. Letsoalo complains that:
  2. DM did not give him a right of reply, even though he was directly involved in the matters addressed in the article;
  3. the article refers to him as a sociopath and quotes an individual who maligns his character, which has impugned his dignity and has resulted in unnecessary reputational harm;
  4. the text suggests wrongdoing or negligence without substantiated evidence, suggesting an increase in liability and thereby influencing public perception negatively and creating mistrust – without any supportive evidence; and
  5. the amounts of money mentioned is wrong.

Misleading, false headline

  1. Letsoalo says the RAF has been technically insolvent since 1981, signifying that he is not to be blamed for the crisis.
  2. He adds that RAF’s liability cannot blow a hole in the fiscus. “Section 21(2) of the RAF Act provides that in circumstances where the RAF cannot pay, the claimant can sue the wrongdoer for losses or damages. The wrongdoer in a road accident is not the state but the driver of the car.”

No right of reply

  1. Letsoalo complains that DM’s failure to give him a right of reply constitutes a breach of the Press Code.

Insults

  1. Letsoalo complains that the article prominently features his name and photograph. It also calls him a sociopath and quotes an individual who maligns his character without ever having engaged with him. This, he says, has impugned his dignity and has resulted in unnecessary reputational harm.

Creating mistrust

  1. Letsoalo says the article is misleading and serves to spread mistrust regarding the RAF’s liability. The way the information is presented “suggests wrongdoing or negligence without substantiated evidence, thereby influencing public perception negatively”.
  2. He submits that “there is simply no evidence of any mismanagement leading to an increase in the liability.”

Wrong amounts

  1. Letsoalo argues that the article misleadingly presents public criticism of the RAF and that it omits key context. He claims:
  2. Legal costs dropped from R10.6 billion in 2019 to under R3.7 billion in 2024/25, according to audited figures;
  3. Allegations from the Ketsekele vs RAF judgment and media reports (that the SIU found RAF bank accounts with R1-million – R100-million) are false – no such accounts exist;
  4. Administration costs have fallen from about R20bn to R7bn, while claims payments rose from R24bn to R43bn, and claim processing times have shortened; and
  5. Payments to illegal immigrants and unlawful medical scheme claims have been nearly eliminated.

Reply to the complaint

  1. DM says the piece relied on publicly available reports, parliamentary proceedings, statements by elected officials and oversight bodies, and expert commentary from practitioners directly engaged with the RAF system.
  2. “This is clearly analysis drawn on facts in the public domain. It is not a news report purporting to establish new factual findings about … Letsoalo.” As such, it says the requirements for protected comment are met (as it is about a publicly funded entity that is technically bankrupt, and as it is based on facts that are true or substantially true).
  3. Deputy editor Anso Thom says the piece does not introduce new allegations requiring a fresh response – it merely summarises and analyses matters already in the public domain, including parliamentary and investigative processes. Moreover, Letsoalo’s position has been publicly aired in various forums.
  4. She submits that Letsoalo has snubbed a parliamentary probe into the RAF under his tenure as CEO, declining an opportunity to publicly state his case on these issues.
  5. Thom agrees that this piece was initially not clearly identified as analysis – for which she apologises. This matter has already been rectified.

Rejoinder

  1. Letsoalo insists that the piece was not an analysis or an opinion – readers would have read it as a news article.
  2. He rejects Thom’s apology and says he wishes to proceed with his complaint.
  3. He inter alia reiterates that:
  4. even an analysis must be balanced and should not be misleading;
  5. the piece quotes sources who have no analytical skills to assess the RAF’s liability;
  6. his decision to not attend a meeting by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) is his democratic right;
  7. his name was maligned by calling him a “sociopath”; and
  8. the last AGSA report points out it was clear that the financials of the RAF were prepared as a “going concern” – which was the position of the RAF under his tenure.

Analysis

  1. The central issue at stake is what the nature of the text is – or rather, how a reasonable reader would have interpreted it. The nature of the text will determine which section(s) of the Press Code is applicable in this finding.
  2. Firstly, the introductory sentence reads: “A bit of good news is like a tonic, boosting cautious optimism that SA Inc has finally started to tidy its books and is poised to turn the corner.”
  3. This is a vague, general statement – unlike a proper news story that always starts with new news. My first read of this sentence immediately created the impression that this is the introduction to an analysis.
  4. Moreover, having read further, I did not come across any new information. This confirmed my first impression.
  5. Let me point out that this also goes for the use of the word “sociopath”. Yes, this is harsh. Sociopathic describes behaviour characterised by a profound lack of empathy, conscience, or regard for social rules and the rights of others, often involving manipulation and impulsive, harmful actions (definition derived from the internet). Any normal person would object to being called that.
  6. However, the article makes it clear that this is not a new statement – it has been made in November of the previous year ahead of a parliamentary (Scopa) inquiry into the RAF.
  7. I agree that the piece should have been labelled as opinion or comment – DM did slip up on this point. However, it did rectify the matter, together with an apology. Kudos for that.
  8. Having decided that the piece is not a news story, but an analysis, Section 7.2 of the Press Code is applicable to this complaint.
  9. As this case is about the same issue where Wildlife Ranching South Africa and others complained about two articles in DM (finding made on 14 April 2026), I quote from my analysis:
 

32.  Let me state, upfront, that Section 1.8, which requires journalists to give a subject of critical reporting a right of reply, is nót applicable in this case. Columnists are nót required to ask for comment – and they never will be (not in a situation where the press is free, that is). This section is about comment that should be obtained from subjects of critical reportage in news stories.

  1. In the case at hand, Section 7.2 is central. It reads, “Comment or criticism is protected even if it is extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it is without malice, is on a matter of public interest, has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true, and is presented in a manner that it appears clearly to be comment.”
  2. My task, therefore, is not to determine whether the comments are extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced – the Code allows that to be the case.
  3. What is on my table, is the:

(a)     matter of malice; and

(b)    question whether it “has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true”.

  1. As for “malice”: This is a highly subjective matter which requires extraordinary evidence. I do not have any evidence of an attack on individuals or organisations – it is the issue itself which is the target of the analysis.
  2. As for “true”: In this case, there is no way that this office can decide whether the insinuations or innuendos are true or not. Our office does not have such investigative powers; ours is not a court of law.
  3. All that remains, then, is the question if the comments are “reasonably true” – that, and that alone, will determine if the piece was in breach of the Press Code and therefore, if it was harmful to the complainant’s dignity and reputation, as addressed in Section 3.3 of the Code.

 

 

  1. I take DM’s argument seriously that the piece relied on publicly available reports, parliamentary proceedings, statements by elected officials and oversight bodies, and commentary from practitioners directly engaged with the RAF system.
  2. I also consider that the article does not introduce new allegations – it merely summarises and analyses matters that already are in the public domain.
  3. This makes the statements/allegations in the article reasonably true, giving the journalist a right to its opinion – even if it is wrong in someone else’s opinion.
  4. However, when it comes to facts, not opinion, it is a different story. It is one thing to voice one’s opinion, but another to get the facts wrong. Therefore, I need to give special attention to the complaint that the article got its numbers wrong. See Point 14 above.
  5. Letsoalo complains in 14 (b) that allegations from the Ketsekele vs RAF judgment and media reports (that the SIU found RAF bank accounts with R1-million – R100-million) are false – no such accounts exist, he says.
  6. However, this is what the article says: “In October last year, four months after Letsoalo was put on special leave, his RAF colleagues told Parliament that the SIU had uncovered RAF bank accounts with between R1-million and R100-million.” (Emphasis added.)
  7. This is not a statement of fact that the amounts mentioned are correct – it is a statement of fact of what RAF colleagues told Parliament. If these figures are wrong, the newspaper is not to be blamed.
  8. As for Points 14 (a), (c) and (d) – that may be true, but the fact remains that the RAF nevertheless remains in a crisis.
  9. The fact that Letsoalo refused to attend a Scopa probe into the RAF is irrelevant to this adjudication. 

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

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

Johan Retief

Acting Press Ombud

17 April  2026

 

Related Posts