Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Baepi vs City Press

, ,

Complaint 000584

Ruling by Deputy Press Ombud Franz Krüger 

Date of publication:

19 April 2026

Headline of publication:

“Hawks probe City Power extortion racket”

Link: https://www.news24.com/citypress/news/hawks-probe-city-power-extortion-racket-20260418-1193

Author: Max Matavire

Particulars

  1. On 16 April, lawyers for Marvin Baepi, a manager at City Power in Johannesburg, sent a letter to City Press demanding that the newspaper refrain from publishing an article about him.
  2. The newspaper refused the request and published the article a few days later.
  3. Baepi then lodged a formal complaint with the Press Council.
  4. City Press filed a response through the office of their internal ombudsman, George Claassen, and the complainant responded in turn.
  5. I take into account the various submissions filed in this matter, including points raised in the related email exchanges.

The article

  1. The article reports that a case has been opened with the Hawks into claims of corruption and extortion at City Power. The complaint reportedly implicates Baepi and another manager. A spokesperson for the entity is quoted as confirming that the two have been suspended pending an investigation.
  2. The article also refers to the lawyer’s letter sent by Baepi, demanding that the newspaper refrain from publishing the article and claiming that in fact Baepi is a whistleblower who deserves protection. City Power is quoted as denying that Baepi has reported anything to the company.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is that the article breaches clauses 1.1, 2, 1.8, and 3 of the Press Code in various respects.

Complaint: Publication of unverified claims

  1. The complainant argues that the claims against him reflected in the report are unverified, being drawn only from an account by an unnamed whistleblower who has laid a complaint with the Hawks. The journalist had an obligation to verify the claims independently, says the complainant.
  2. The respondents do not respond directly to this point. They focus instead on the lawyer’s letter sent before publication and what they see as his unwillingness to respond to questions from the reporter. These will be dealt with below.
  3. The complainant’s rejoinder, then, also focuses on the alleged failure to respond.
  4. The complainant also argues that the use of the expression “facing charges” suggests criminal charges have been brought, which is not the case.

Discussion

  1. It is true that the reporter did not verify the details provided by the whistleblower. The question is whether the claims were nevertheless reportable.
  2. Reporters are not courts. The Press Code makes it clear that claims can be reported even if they are not fully verified. The requirement in clause 1.3 is that it should be clear what is fact and what amounts to “opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions”. Clause 1.7 requires the media to verify information where that is practicable and indicate where it is not.
  3. There are limits to the publication of claims – the publication of wild accusations or clear slander would not be permissible.
  4. In the present case, specific detail is provided by a direct witness, who though unnamed is quoted directly. It is clear he or she spoke to the reporter, who also had access to an affidavit supplied to the Hawks. The account describes events the whistleblower claims to have experienced directly.
  5. The employer, City Power, confirms that claims have been made, that there is an investigation and that Baepi has been suspended. It is clear the entity is taking the matter seriously. This does not establish beyond doubt that the claims made are true – such a conclusion could only be reached after the investigation, and possible legal processes are concluded.  But it does mean that the claims can be reported as they go beyond wild allegation.
  6. In addition, the report makes the status of the claims clear. A reasonable reader would understand that they remain to be tested.
  7. With regard to the use of the phrase “facing charges”, though it generally does suggest that criminal proceedings have been initiated, the context makes clear that the meaning here is looser, meaning simply that the two managers face allegations and an investigation.

Finding

  1. I find that the article does not breach the Press Code’s provisions on the publication of verified information.

Complaint: Failure to obtain comment

Arguments

  1. The complainant confirms having been asked to comment, but argues that the lack of specific detail in the questions meant the opportunity was not fair or meaningful. The complaint included screenshots of his WhatsApp exchange with the reporter.
  2. In their response, City Press repeated their response to the earlier lawyer’s letter demanding that the article not be published, where they said he had been given an opportunity to respond in line with clause 1.8 of the Press Code. His attempt to prevent publication was nothing more than a SLAPP (Strategic Litigation against Public Participation) suit. It was therefore an abuse of process, and they did not need to entertain it.
  3. In his rejoinder, the complainant repeats that he could not respond meaningfully without more detail in the questions. “(I)t would be inappropriate to provide a binary confirmation or denial of serious criminal allegations in the absence of a coherent and verified factual foundation,” he writes.

Discussion

  1. It is not in dispute that the reporter posed questions to Baepi, who took the view that he needed more detail before being able to respond.
  2. However, the WhatsApp exchange includes the main points that were later reported, including the fact of Baepi’s suspension and the Hawks’ investigation. It would have been easily possible to formulate a response.
  3. The newspaper took sufficient steps to secure a response from the complainant.

Finding

  1. I find that the article did not breach Clause 1.8 by failing to offer the complainant an adequate opportunity to put forward his version of events.
  • Complaint: Failure to take adequate account of whistleblower status

Arguments

  1. The complainant places considerable emphasis on his claim that he is in fact himself a whistleblower and therefore entitled to protection. Though they were told of his status, City Press persisted with publishing his name, exposing him to physical danger.
  2. The complainant also argues that though the article refers to the claim by quoting his lawyer’s letter, this is immediately undermined by City Power’s dismissal of the claim. They are not a reliable source on his status, he argues, since they are implicated.
  3. The respondent is sceptical of the claim, saying that Baepi exposed himself in the letter to them and in the complaint to the Press Council.
  4. The complainant does not return to the point in his rejoinder.

Discussion

  1. The complaint says that Baepi is entitled to whistleblower protection under South African law. It is not clear whether the reference is to the Protected Disclosures Act of 2000, but the Press Council is in any event not the appropriate forum to consider an alleged breach of the law.  The Press Council can only consider claims of breach in terms of the Press Code.
  2. The code does not explicitly deal with the protection of whistleblowers, but some related provisions were cited in the complaint and will be discussed below.
  3. It is noteworthy that Baepi presented no details of any basis for his claim, simply making the bald assertion that he is a whistleblower.
  4. The complaint references clause 1.1 and 1.3, on the basis that though his claim was reflected in the report, it was immediately undermined by City Power, an interested party. The reporting was therefore in breach of the requirement for truthful reporting in that it was misleading.
  5. However, it is sound practice to present claims and counterclaims, as was done here.
  6. The complaint also refers to clause 3, which protects the dignity, reputation, and privacy of individuals. However, the clause allows rights to privacy to be overridden in the public interest.
  7. There is no question that claims of corruption at a government entity like City Power are of public interest, providing sufficient justification to allow an infringement of his privacy.
  8. Though not mentioned in the complaint, it is worth noting the provisions of clause 11, which require the protection of confidential sources of information. The clause protects those supplying information on the understanding of confidentiality, which does not apply to Baepi’s situation.
  • Ruling
  1. I find that the article did not breach any aspect of the Press Code by identifying the complainant.

Finding

  1. I dismiss the complaint that the article breached clauses 1.1, 2, 1.8, and 3 of the Press Code.
  2. Appeal
  3. The Complaints Procedures lay down 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

Ruling by
Franz Krüger, Deputy Press Ombud
19 May 2026

 

Related Posts