Gugulethu Ntombela v Daily Sun

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Author: Nhlanhla Khomola

Headline: Cheap ngombiyoni ‘kills’ kasi boozers!

Publication Date: 27 February 2026

Dates lodged: 9 and 20 March 2026

Link to story: https://www.snl24.com/dailysun/news/orlando-east-residents-in-soweto-claim-cheap-alcohol-ngombiyoni-is-killing-people-ekasi-20260227 

Particulars

1. This finding is based on correspondence by Bongani Khanyile Ka Luthuli Attorneys Inc, on behalf of Gugulethu Ntombela, and Amos Mananyetso, the editor of the Daily Sun.

The article

2. The story is about a cheap, potent drink called ngombiyoni, that is causing fear and anger in Orlando East, Soweto. Residents reportedly accuse a well-known liquor outlet of selling the stuff to young people and to those who are unemployed. They claim it has caused people in the township (“ekasi”) to vomit and even to die.
3. It is alleged that the outlet is owned by a female police officer. One resident reportedly said this officer is feared in the community and that this has silenced many families who have lost loved ones. “When we try to open cases at the local police station, they are not registered,” this person reportedly alleged.
4. Police spokeswoman Colonel Dimakatso Nevhuhulwi confirmed that the liquor outlet was registered – however, it was found to be “non-compliant with the by-laws”. She added that the owner of the outlet is a former police officer.

The complaint

5. In Ntombela’s original complaint, lodged on 9 March 2016, she says that the article contains untruthful information about her business. She complains that the story is in breach of Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8 and10.1 of the Press Code.
6. She denies that her outlet sells ngombiyoni as she stopped doing so in January 2025, that she has caused people to die, and that she was a former policewoman.
7. She says the article is defamatory of her and asks for a retraction and an apology.
8. Ntombela supplements her complaint on March 20, stating in more detail how she thinks the article has violated the Press Code on several fronts:
   1. The statement that the residents of Orlando East are in fear because of her outlet selling “ingombiyoni” – this is not truthful, accurate and fair and therefore it violates Section 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code;
   2. She says she stopped selling the drink in January 2025 – while it was not reported that numerous establishments around Soweto still sold it (making her believe that the newspaper has targeted her);
   3. The claim that some people vomited and other even died after drinking the stuff, seem to suggest that she was responsible for the death of some people;
   4. The statements that many who have complained have been silenced and that they fear for their lives suggest that she intentionally murders people who dare speak out against the product she is accused of selling. This, she argues, is not reasonably true and is therefore in violation of Clause 1.3 of the Code;
   5. Ntombela again denies that she has ever been a police officer. The allegation that she was, suggests that she is untouchable and that she was above the law because of that; and
   6. The journalist should not have published the story without her comments.
9. Ntombela concludes that the reportage has caused unnecessary panic and fear in the community, whilst her business was crippled and she had suffered reputational damage. This violates Clause 3.3 of the Code, she contends.
10. It has even put her life in danger, she submits.

Reply to the complaint

Background

11. Mananyetso explains that a reader and member of the community of Orlando in Soweto called the Daily Sun newsroom, alleging there is a liquor outlet that sells unhealthy drinks.
12. The story was assigned to Nhlanhla Khomola, who contacted the caller and conducted interviews with several residents in Orlando East as well. These people requested anonymity due to safety concerns, alleging that the specific tavern owner in question is a dangerous individual.
13. The editor says that, when Khomola visited the tavern (on February 17), she was told that the owner was not present. She then requested contact details for the owner, and a bartender provided her only with an email address. The journalist emailed questions to Ntombela on the same day, but they remained unanswered.
14. A week later, Khomola sent a follow-up email, stating that failure to respond would result in the story being published without the owner’s comment. Again, there was no response.
15. A day later, on February 25, the police confirmed that they had previously received complaints from residents relating to the tavern, adding that the owner was a former member of the SAPS.
16. After the story was published (on February 27), an unidentified woman telephonically requested to visit the newsroom to meet with the editor. She clearly was unhappy with the article, and she alleged that she had not been given a right of reply. She did acknowledge that she had received the email enquiries but claimed that she only saw them after the story had been published.
17. “During the conversation, she further stated that they had been investigating our journalist, knew where she lived, and had taken videos of her when she visited the tavern. We do not know and understand what value this information has in relation to the story and the telephonic complaint,” the editor remarked.

In particular

18. In the newspaper’s defence, Mananyetso submits that:
19. the article accurately reflects the claims by members of the community – “A recording of the interviews matches the allegations and claims as carried in the article”. He adds that the article does not contain any information that the interviewees did not tell the journalist;
20. the article does not accuse the outlet of any wrongdoing as they are not the manufacturers of the alcoholic beverage in question, but merely a seller;
21. Ntombela claims that they no longer sell the drink – “information which could have served a better purpose had it reached us before publication”;
22. the article presented the claims as allegations and not as facts;
23. the official response from the SAPS supports the claims made by the members of the community in that official complaints were laid with the local police station against the outlet;
24. the SAPS has confirmed that the owner is a former member of the SAPS;
25. the article does not state that the tavern is operated illegally;
26. the information was obtained legally – the journalist visited the outlet, introduced herself as a journalist, and sent an email enquiry, again clearly identifying herself and her publication; and
27. the article did not disclose the name of the outlet and its owner; it also did not give its address. The picture used in the article was carefully framed to ensure it did not show the name or the location of the establishment. “At best, the picture is as generic as possible, and it could have been taken anywhere.”
28. The editor concludes that it is not clear what relief Ntombela is asking for. “However, in the spirit of fairness and to demonstrate that we do not harbour any ill feelings or a personal vendetta against the establishment and its owners, we are amenable to publishing a follow-up article that will capture the response, position and facts from the establishment and its owners,” he offers.

Rejoinder

20. Ntombela replies to the above inter alia as follows:
21. She says she is an upright citizen, young and industrious. She does not pose any threat to anybody, whether actual or perceived. It is therefore “curious” that people have asked for anonymity.
22. She demands that the recording be furnished to her to verify the allegations made in the article.
23. The submission that the sources “made a number of allegations which could not be verified” means that what was ultimately published, was verified. She takes serious exception to this and asks for proof thereof (including her alleged ex-SAPS membership and of those whom she allegedly threatened – she asks for a written confirmation of her service number and membership as well as the name of the SAPS official spoken);
24. The SAPS did not say the complaints are legitimate, besides, the alleged SAPS confirmation is vague and misleading; and
25. Readers could easily have identify the outlet in question as hers – both from the picture and from the description in the article.

Analysis

21. The following issues are in question:
22. Could readers have identified the specific outlet, and therefore connect Ntombela to the story? In other words, did she have a right to lodge a complaint with this office?
23. Was it fair for the newspaper to publish the story without Ntombela’s comments?
24. Was it true that the outlet was selling ngombiyoni?
25. Was the owner of the outlet a former policewoman?
26. Was the reportage of the journalist’s interview(s) with members of the community, as well as her correspondence with the SAPS, fairly reflected in the article?
27. Was the information in the article verified?

Could readers have identified the specific outlet, and therefore connect Ntombela to the story?

22. I note, with appreciation, that the article does not disclose Ntombela’s name or the name of the outlet, and neither does it reveal its address.
23. However, I disagree with the newspaper that “the picture is as generic as possible, and it could have been taken anywhere”.
24. Because of that, I do believe that Ntombela has a right to complain.

Was it fair for the newspaper to publish the story without Ntombela’s comments?

25. I do believe that the journalist, Nhlanhla Khomola, gave Ntombela a reasonable chance to comment, as directed by Section 1.8 of the Press Code. She visited the outlet on February 17 and sent Ntombela an email at 15:34 on the same day (a copy of that email is in my possession). I am also satisfied that Khomola’s questions were all pertinent to the content of her article.
26. Then, one week later, after she got no response, she sent another email (which was the only contact detail that she had been given) to Ntombela. Again, she received no response.
27. The story was published three days later.
28. Ntombela’s argument that she did not regularly check her emails is, with respect, not the newspaper’s problem.
29. Section 1.8 of the Press Code says that the subject of critical reportage should be afforded “reasonable time to respond” and “if unable to obtain comment, this shall be stated”.
30. The article adheres to both conditions.

Was it true that the outlet was selling ngombiyoni?

31. This was one of the questions that Khomola asked Ntombela.
32. The complainant is adamant that her outlet had stopped selling the drink in January 2025.
33. I am sure that the journalist would have reported it, if she had that information at her disposal.

Was the owner of the outlet a former policewoman?

34. I note, with interest, that the editor, in his response to the complaint, four times uses the plural when referring to the owner – he writes “owners”.
35. This is not disputed by Ntombela in her rejoinder.
36. On that basis, I accept that it is quite possible that there is more than one owner involved.
37. Also important is to realise that the article did not mention Ntombela by name.
38. I have verified that the SAPS did confirm that the “owner” is a former policewoman. Given the fact that there possibly are more than one owner, this means that the SAPS did not necessarily refer to Ntombela.
39. Under these circumstances, I believe that Ntombela is not a former policewoman – or else she would not have asked the newspaper to furnish her with her alleged police number.
40. In later communication by our office with the newspaper, it says: “We wish to emphasise that, in our reporting, we did not mention the name Ms Ntombela. The police did not confirm this name to us; they only indicated that the owner of the establishment is a former SAPS member.”

Was the reportage of the journalist’s interview(s) with members of the community, as well as her correspondence with the SAPS, fairly reflected in the article?

41. I have verified that most of the statements made in the article resonated with an audio recording of the journalist’s interview.
42. However, there is one exception – I have no proof of the following: “ ‘She [the cop] is feared in the community’, one resident said… Community members fear has silenced many families who have lost loved ones.”
43. This does not mean that the journalist sucked these allegations out of her thumb. I sincerely doubt it, as the rest of her reportage is above board.
44. I also take into consideration that the “cop” referred to in the statement was not necessarily Ntombela.
45. I am also satisfied that the SAPS’s response was accurately reported.

Was the information in the article verified?

46. There is no unverified information in the article. Every single statement is either presented as an allegation or attributed to a source.

Finding

47. The complaint is

The editor’s offer

48. The editor says the newspaper is “amenable to publishing a follow-up article that will capture the response, position and facts from the establishment and its owners.”
49. As I have dismissed the complaint, I cannot even make a suggestion as to what should happen next. The ball is in Ntombela’s court to either accept this offer or to reject it.

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