Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

YNF Engineering CC and Jade Orren v News24

, ,

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint:  PCSA 000530

Author: Sikonathi Mantshantsha, investigative reporter

Headlines, with links to articles:

Publication Dates: 23 February 2026 and 16 March 2026 respectively

Dates lodged: 25 February 2026 and 16 March 2026 respectively

Particulars

  1. This finding is based on correspondence by hbgSchindlers Attorneys, on behalf of YNF Engineering CC (YNF) and Jade Orren (YNF’s managing director). At a later stage, hbgSchindlers Attorneys were replaced by the law firm Nicqui Galaktiou Inc., who also corresponded with this office. News24’s response came from the reporter, Sikonathi Mantshantsha, together with George Claassen, News24’s Public Editor.

The article

  1. The first article contains allegations of large-scale waste, corruption, and mismanagement within the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa).
  2. The story is based on a draft report by Webber Wentzel Attorneys (WWA), as commissioned by Prasa.
  3. More specifically, it is alleged that Prasa spent billions of rand refurbishing old, often unusable or unnecessary trains. Many of these trains were either not needed, not usable, or left idle – hence the headline.
  4. YNF, who has allegedly received preferential treatment by Prasa, reportedly was paid R970 million – about 40% of the amount Prasa spent in the first three years of the general overhaul tender.
  5. The second story is about the same matter, focusing specifically on Molefe Mosweu, a Prasa executive. It inter alia alleges that he:

a. accepted bribes linked to companies doing business with Prasa;

b. used or received luxury goods such as Gucci items and Mercedes-Benz vehicles;

c. acquired or benefited from property and other personal perks;

d. showed off luxury purchases in WhatsApp messages, suggesting a lifestyle funded through corrupt dealings; and

e. was part of a wider system of irregular contracting and inflated payments in a multi-billion-rand rail overhaul project.

7. It contains the following paragraph with regards to YNF: “As part of its investigation into allegations of corruption, favouritism and preferential treatment, Webber Wentzel extracted evidence from the Prasa-issued laptops and mobile phones belonging to Mosweu and some of his colleagues. News24 recently revealed that one company, YNF Engineering, received almost a billion rand in contracts and that it, along with other companies, is implicated in allegations of bribing, price gouging and overcharging Prasa.”

The complaints

The first article

  1. YNF and its managing director, Jade Orren, complain that the following allegations are untrue and harmful of their dignity and reputation:

a. YNF has engaged in price gouging;

b. YNF has committed fraud;

c. YNF has engaged in bribery and corruption; and

d. Orren has had improper relationships with some Prasa employees.

9. The complainants note that Prasa itself had “categorically refuted” the allegations – and yet, the article casts aspersions on them, rather than to clear their names. This is “demonstrative of prejudice and a nefarious agenda which ought not to be tolerated”.

10. Also of great concern to the complainants is the fact that the allegations are premised on a draft, incomplete and unfinalised report prepared by the law firm, Webber Wentzel.

11. Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.9, and 3.2-3.3.2 of the Press Code are said to have been breached.

12. The complainants demand an apology and a retraction, as well as a written undertaking that News24/Media 24 shall not publish further articles about them until they have received the final report.

13. In YNF’s complaint on March 16 to the second article, it also asks to introduce additional submissions to its first complaint – the       company made use of another law firm, which was not involved in the preparation of that complaint. (My decision to grant YNF its request is under Point 53.) These additions mainly concern Section 1.7 and 1.8 of the Press Code (which are about verification and a right of reply).

14. The amended complaint is that News24 has relied on incomplete information which was open to correction and/or supplementation, and subject to further investigation – which means that the information was not verified (Section 1.7).

15. The complainants say the journalist reported on matters that they were not asked about; News24 also failed to consider their comments on the same matter that they gave in May 2025 to Sipho Masondo, another (at the time a News24) journalist (Section 1.8).

The second article

  1. On 16 March 2026, FNY lodges the following complaint:

a. Its inclusion in this article creates the clear but inaccurate impression that it is implicated in the alleged bribery and corruption linked to luxury purchases;

b. This impression arises from the way that their names and photographs are placed near allegations that the luxury purchases were “believed to have been funded by proceeds from bribes paid by contractors”; and

c. The inference of wrongdoing on their part is defamatory, reckless and prejudicial to them “in the extreme”.

Reply to the complaint

The first article

  1. News24 denies that Prasa has disputed the allegations against YNF and Orren as stated in the WWA report. What Prasa did “was merely to distance itself from the allegations”.
  2. It argues that it is in any case not for Prasa to respond on behalf of YNF to questions directed at that company about its own business.
  3. Claassen says the journalist asked YNF five times for a response to the allegations levelled against it – but he never received a response.
  4. He says WWA has made findings against YNF and that it has directed Prasa to claim taxpayer funds that were stolen through overinflation of invoices and for work, which was paid for, but never was done.
  5. News24 denies that the articles in question were written to cast aspersions on YNF and neither were they written to clear their names – it was merely to draw attention to YNF’s (and those of other contractors’) “response and accountability to the serious allegations of siphoning off taxpayer funds through the alleged misconduct”.
  6. It emphasises that the articles were in the public interest – R7.5 billion of taxpayer funds were allocated to repairs that were rendered ineffective through the alleged conduct of companies such as YNF.
  7. Claassen says that both Prasa and the Department of Transport have confirmed that they are in possession of the final report and that they are not releasing it for public consumption. “None have disputed the findings in the draft report, which News24 clearly stated as such to all stakeholders.”
  8. He argues, “In the face of this inexplicable refusal by both entities to release the final report, News24 is obliged, in the public interest, to report the undisputed contents of the only report available to it, which is the draft report.”
  9. The Public Editor submits that the article has not breached any section of the Press Code and concludes that no apology, retraction and undertaking of any form are therefore warranted.
  10. News24 does not respond to the amended complaint, as mentioned under Point 13.

The second story

  1. News24 says YNF is included in this article as it is indeed implicated in the alleged bribery and corruption as found in WWA’s draft report.
  2. However, it is denied that the report implicates YNF in luxury purchases made by Mosweu, who is the subject of the story.
  3. Alongside YNF, those cited in WWA’s report have been mentioned in the story, together with their response to News24’s enquiries.
  4. Claassen points out that YNF is mentioned in the context of luxury purchases using proceeds of alleged bribes, together with Orren’s threats to “clean you out in your personal capacity” against this journalist.
  5. He adds that YNF did not deny any allegations put to it. It merely requested Prasa to do so – which the latter refused to do.
  6. He denies that the article is defamatory or reckless – it is based on a factual finding by WWA in its draft report.
  7. The Public Editor submits that the article does not breach the Press Code in any way – it states clearly and truthfully that its reportage was based on a draft forensic report. Care was taken to again approach all the parties implicated in the report and reflect their response – but again, both YNF and Orren chose to ignore emailed questions which were sent to them on 3 and 6 March 2026.
  8. News24 says that the second story rectified the complaint that the complainant’s comments were not included in the first one.

Rejoinder

The first article

  1. The complainants say it is clear from Prasa’s letter, dated 28 January 2026, that it “…categorically refutes the allegations against YNF and Mr. J Orren as contained in the Media Enquiry…”. They argue that the words “refute” and “deny” have the same meaning, i.e. that the topic in question is challenged or disputed.
  2. They submit that only Prasa could respond to some questions, and that they would have been in breach of their contractual obligations to the state-owned enterprise had they responded to the enquiry.
  3. The complainants deny that they simply declined invitations to provide News24 with responses. They say they advised the author of the article, Sikonathi Mantshantsha, that Orren previously had an extensive meeting with Masondo, with Prasa’s consent, regarding the same subject matter – and requested that Mantshantsha engage with Masondo in this regard.
  4. Masondo’s communication to YNF is dated 8 May 2025.
  5. YNF submits that there are comprehensive differences between the questions posed by the two journalists in that Masondo’s questions are far more detailed, while Mantshantsha’s ones are noticeably more accusatorially and emotively worded.
  6. Moreover, News24 failed to publish its version provided to Masondo. The complainants notice that Masondo published four articles – all of which record no allegations of wrongdoing against them.
  7. They add that the views sought need to be relevant to the contents that the journalist intends to publish. “The person being questioned must at least know what he or she is to respond to, and every critical allegation to be published is put to the subject of critical reportage. [News24] failed to do so in this matter. Furthermore, [News24] should rely upon previous views that were obtained from the subject of reportage especially if it has been referred to such previous views that were provided.”
  8. The also argue that they could not dispute findings that are supposedly contained in the report to which they have had no sight. Besides, News24 could not rely on a document that is neither publicly available nor disclosed to affected parties, while simultaneously asserting the correctness of statements purportedly drawn from it.
  9. The complainants argue that the “draft” or “interim” report is incomplete, subject to change, and should have been treated with caution. They suggest it likely contained qualifications or disclaimers that the reporter failed to mention. By omitting these, the article presents tentative findings as confirmed facts, creating a misleading sense of certainty.
  10. As a result, News24 failed to independently verify the accuracy thereof and further failed to state that such doubtful information was incapable of being verified. This, they submit, is in breach of Section 1.7 of the Press Code that says, “The media shall verify the accuracy of doubtful information, if practicable. If not, this shall be stated.”
  11. Regarding Section 1.8 of the Code that states, “The media shall seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical importance in advance of publication…”: The complainants deny that their views sought sufficiently pertained to the content that News24 intended to publish and which it ultimately did publish.

The second story

  1. The complainants deny that they were involved in any of the purchases mentioned in the article.
  2. As News24 does not confirm that the draft report states that they were involved with such purchases, the complainants “can therefore only assume, given that we are not privy to the contents of the WW Draft Report, that such allegations are not contained therein”.
  3. In that case, there is no reason why a picture of Orren is relevant – they say this has created an unfair association and has caused significant reputational damage to them.
  4. The complainants submit that they, as well as the Press Council, are clearly at a disadvantage, given that they are not in possession of the draft report that News24 relies upon. This means that they are unable to verify whether those statements are accurately quoted, or that there are any relevant and/or imperative portions of the draft report that have been omitted.
  5. They reiterate that a comparison between the questions posed to them and the content of the article “reveals a stark and unjustifiable disconnect” – rendering their prior engagement with Masondo effectively meaningless. In fact, it boiled down to “a targeted and unwarranted personal attack” on Orren.
  6. The complainants conclude that they noted that the second article has been amended (with regards to the first story), but submit that the correction does not address the issues raised by them in their second complaint. “The amendments appear to relate solely to KNPC, Kabusah Rail, Kabusha Rail Engineering, and Mr Langalthu Ngcobo. The content concerning our clients remains unchanged.”

Analysis

  1. The salient issues regarding the first article are the following:
  2. Should the amended complaint regarding the first article be entertained?

a. News24 has limited its response to the original complaint as lodged.

b. While I respect its decision, I have nevertheless decided to entertain the amended complaint, as worded by the newly appointed law firm Nicqui Galaktiou Inc, on the basis that it was lodged within the 20 days limitation which the Press Council’s Complaints Procedures allow for.[1]

  1. What is the nature of the document that News24 has relied upon?

a. I have obtained a copy of the draft report, on condition that I keep it confidential.

b. A central question is if the document was an “interim” report (as stated in the article), or a “draft report” (as complained about). This is crucial, as there is a fundamental difference between the two – an interim reportis an official, partial report on progress, while a draft report is a preliminary, informal working document meant for internal review and feedback before being finalised. Interim reports are formal documentation, while drafts are incomplete versions which are subject to changes.

c. The document in question presents itself as a draft report. Each page of the report has the word “draft” written over it.

d. News24 had all the right in the world to report on a draft report, especially as City Press was not privy to the final report.

e. I do consider that the newspaper probably used the two terms interchangeably – but I also need to take into account that observant readers might have realised that there is a difference between a draft and an interim report. Such readers would have believed that the findings in the report are final. That was misleading.

f. The question, therefore, becomes if the article itself did state a finding as a fact – the fact that it was a draft report, meant that the journalist should have been extra careful not to state its preliminary findings as facts which are final (as the complainants rightfully say).

g. Please note that it is not for the newspaper to decide whether the allegations are true or false. The newspaper’s job was to report the allegations (which it did), not to evaluate The same goes for this office.

h. After studying all the documentation, including the draft report, I am satisfied that that is exactly what the reporter did – he did treat the report with caution. Unfortunately, though, there is one exception.

i. While I commend the journalist for consistently using words such as “alleged”, “the WWA found”, “accused” and “apparently” (even in the headline), he did slip up where he reported the following with regard to the complainant: “YNF was paid R970 million, about 40% of the amount Prasa spent in the first three years on the general overhaul tender…” This finding of WWA was presented as a fact.

j. In mitigation, though, I also consider that the rest of the article consistently refers to a report, as stated above, which means that the reasonable reader could have understood the sentence in question within the context of the draft report.

k. My sanction in this regard will reflect these mitigating considerations.

l. Be that as it may, the sentence in question appears immediately underneath the headline – and it is quite possible that some readers would not have read much further.

  1. Did the articles fairly reflect the above?

a. Having perused the report, I am satisfied that the articles truthfully, accurately and fairly reflect the contents of the report, and that it did not omit crucial information.

b. The journalist responded satisfactorily to all the question that I did have.

56. Are the allegations against YNF uncontested?

a. This is Mantshantsha’s response to my question about this matter to News24: “The draft report contains Webber Wentzel’s findings about all the parties mentioned in the report. When we put the questions that we did to YNF Engineering, they did not contest or answer to the allegations, despite the numerous opportunities we offered them in writing. The contents of the Webber Wentzel report remain uncontested, therefore. Only threats did we receive, instead of any attempt to dispel the allegations.”

b. It is true that YNF, at the time, did not contest the findings in writing. However, after the first article was published, they complained to this office – which means that the allegations were indeed contested.

  1. Regarding a right of reply:

a. Were the complainants given a fair opportunity to comment on the allegations and were the questions relevant to what was reported?

b. Was the “rectification” regarding the publishing of the complainants’ comments in the second article sufficient?

c. Why was the information given to Masondo not utilised in the articles?

58. The first article records that News24 gave Orren an opportunity to comment. Having perused the relevant documentation, I am satisfied that this is correct. This was fair and in line with Section 1.8 of the Press Code.

59. I am also convinced that the journalist’s questions were indeed reflected in what was reported. I note that the complainants did not specify which questions were irrelevant or what was reported about them that they had not been asked about.

60. The complainants’ response that they would have been in breach of their contract with Prasa, had they responded, is, with respect, not the newspaper’s problem.

61. I also wonder why YNF is worried about the nature of the questions, as the company was anyway not going to respond to them.

62. Not only did the journalist attempt to get comment from YNF, he also duly reported that Orren and YNF “did not respond to News24’s enquiry seeking comment on the matter during the past two weeks” – which is also required by Section 1.8 of the Press Code.

63. Regarding Masondo: Mantshantsha explained that he worked “totally independently” of Masondo. He then requested YNF to forward him its response to Masondo’s questions. He also asked if that response was still valid and promised Orren to publish that response. Kudos for that.

64. However, this never materialised, and I do not blame Mantshantsha for not contacting Masondo directly (to the best of my knowledge the latter was not in News24’s employ anymore). If YNF was serious enough to have its comments to Masondo published, it would have gone out of its way to furnish the journalist with that information. Why not simply forward it to Mantshantsha?

  1. What was Prasa’s response to the allegations?

a. This is what the first article reports about Prasa’s response: Prasa “distanced it from the allegations in the Media24 enquiry” and “categorically refutes the allegations against YNF and Orren…”

b. Having perused the relevant correspondence, I am satisfied that that represents a fair reflection of Prasa’s response.

  1. The second article

a. The complaint is that YNF’s Its inclusion in the text creates an inaccurate impression that it is implicated in the alleged bribery and corruption linked to luxury purchases.

b. Claassen is correct on this score – YNF is implicated, which does not necessarily mean that it is guilty of corruption.

c. I therefore believe that it was reasonable for News24 to have referred to Orren and to publish his picture.

d. There is no new allegation levelled at YNF in this article.

e. I am also satisfied that the questions posed to them were all relevant to the content of the articles.

f. Did this story “rectify” the matter that YNF’s response was not publish in the first article? This matter is quite baffling, as YNF declined to comment, and the first article did report that the journalist had unsuccessfully tried to obtain comment. As far as I am concerned, there was nothing to rectify in the first place.

Finding

  1. The complaint is dismissed, save for the:

a. incorrect reference to an “interim” report – this is in breach of Section 1.1 of the Press Code that says, “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”; and

b. statement of fact that “YNF was paid R970 million, about 40% of the amount Prasa spent in the first three years of the general overhaul tender” – this is in breach of Section 1.3 of the Code that reads, “… opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such”.

Sanction

News24 is reprimanded for those breaches of the Press Code.

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 on all platforms of the publication where the article was published;
  • refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
  • end with the sentence, “Visit presscouncil.org.za for 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

Johan Retief

Acting Press Ombud

24 April 2026

[1] Section 1.3 of the Complaints Procedures reads, “A complaint shall be made as soon as possible, but not later than 20 working days after the date of publication giving rise to the complaint.”

 

Related Posts