Mboyi and CBRTA vs Sunday World

Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August                                

29 May 2026

Finding: Complaint 000467

Publication (print and online): Sunday World

Date of publication: 14 December 2025

Headline:

Roads agency board lifts CEO’s suspension despite serious allegations

https://sundayworld.co.za/news/roads-agency-board-lifts-ceos-suspension-despite-serious-allegations/

Author: Bongani Mdakane

Particulars

This finding is based on a written complaint on behalf of Cross-Border Road Transport Agency (CBRTA) CEO Mr Lwazi Mboyi and the CBRTA by their legal representative, Ms

Refiloe Mntambo, as well as a number of annexures; a written reply by the Editor of Sunday World, Mr Caiphus Kgosana; and a written response by Ms Mntambo on behalf of Mr Mboyi and the CBRTA.

Complaint

The complainants submit that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 3.3.1 and 10.1 of the Press Code.

1. Summary of article

1.1. According to the article, the new board of the Cross-Border Road Transport Agency (CBRTA) lifted the suspension of its CEO, Lwazi Mboyi, after the intervention of Transport Minister Barbara Creecy.

1.1.1. This decision was reportedly made despite a memorandum by whistleblowers that contains allegations of maladministration and qualifications fraud against Mboyi. It was sent to Creecy, Parliament, the former board and trade unions.

1.1.2. This memorandum, which was written by senior officials of the CBRTA including former employee Botsang Moiloa, includes allegations that Mboyi was appointed irregularly and that he subsequently presided over a purge of staff.

1.1.3. Mboyi was initially suspended in October 2025 over “administrative issues”, but the Department of Transport later declared that his suspension was irregular on the grounds of “a lack of ministerial concurrence”.

1.2. The whistleblowers allege that the job specifications for the CEO post were downgraded from a Masters degree to an Honours degree to suit Mboyi.

1.2.1. They further allege that he falsely claimed in official documents and CBRTA reports that he holds a Masters degree, and later instructed HR personnel to alter these records and refer to them as “incomplete”. They argue that this led to the unfair termination of the officials involved.

1.2.2. The whistleblowers also question why the previous board amended the requirements for the job and approved Mboyi’s appointment without due diligence.

1.3. CBRTA spokesperson Amanda Hlahleni dismissed the allegations as baseless and claimed that they were linked to an aggrieved former employee. She added that this employee was dismissed three years ago for misrepresenting his own qualifications.

1.3.1. Hlahleni stated that, despite repeated requests, no evidence was provided to substantiate the claims against Mboyi. She also said the ex-employee lost his subsequent “legal challenge” in the Labour Court.

1.3.2. According to Hlahleni, the board’s decision to reinstate Mboyi – on the instruction of Creecy – ended a period of internal turmoil at the CBRTA.

1.3.3. However, according to the article, the allegations by senior CBRTA officials were unresolved, “raising questions about corporate governance and accountability at the state agency”.

2. Arguments

Mboyi and CBRTA

2.1. The complainants submit that the article contains several statements which are false, reckless and defamatory.

2.2. They maintain that Mboyi was irregularly suspended by the former board of the CBRTA on 19 October 2025 and that this was confirmed by the Department of Transport in a media statement on 7 November 2025 (Annexure B).

2.2.1. They go on to state that the publication contacted the CBRTA on 5 December 2025 with questions concerning allegations of corruption levelled against Mboyi and “the CBRTA Exco” (Annexure C).

2.2.2. Among other questions, the publication asked “[w]hy Mboyi was suspended by the former Board … only to be reinstated by the new Board on orders from the Minister of Transport”.

2.3. The complainants further point out that the CBRTA was asked to respond to the questions by 5pm on the same day, which they regard as being “within extremely curtailed timelines”. Nevertheless, it responded on the same day (Annexure D).

2.3.1. In their response, they drew attention to the media statement issued by the Department of Transport that Mboyi’s suspension was irregular.

2.4. After Sunday World published the article in question, the complainants sent a letter of demand to the publication on 18 December 2025 and expressed their concern that it did not adhere to the expected standard of professionalism and balanced reportage, especially in circumstances where the allegations published could have an adverse impact on Mboyi and negatively affect the reputation of the CBRTA’s board members (Annexure E).

2.4.1. The complainants demanded an apology and a retraction of the allegations by 22 December 2025. They informed the publication that failure to do so would result in legal proceedings for appropriate relief. However, Sunday World did not respond to the letter of demand.

2.5. The complainants regard the following statements in the article as defamatory:

• “The newly appointed board of the Cross-Border Road Transport Agency (CBRTA) has lifted the suspension of its CEO, Lwazi Mboyi, following direct intervention from Transport Minister Barbara Creecy.”
• “The decision comes despite a detailed whistleblower memorandum alleging serious maladministration and qualification fraud against Mboyi …”
• “The memorandum, penned by senior agency officials including former employee Botsang Moiloa, catalogues a series of allegations claiming Mboyi was irregularly appointed and has since presided over a purge of staff.”
• “The whistleblowers allege that when Mboyi was appointed in April 2022, the job specifications for the CEO post were downgraded from requiring a master’s degree to only an honours degree, a change they claim was made to suit him.”
• “They further contend that Mboyi falsely claimed to hold a master’s degree in official documents and agency reports, later instructing communications and HR personnel to alter these records to state ‘incomplete’.”
• “The document states Mboyi allegedly misrepresented both his undergraduate and honours qualifications from the University of Durban-Westville.”
• “It questions why the previous board amended the requirements and approved his appointment without due diligence …”
• “Moiloa has expressed frustration that the CBRTA has failed to investigate these claims.”

• “Regarding the suspension, Hlahleni confirmed the matter has been resolved by the department.”
• “The board’s decision to reinstate Mboyi, on the Minister’s instruction, closes a chapter of internal turmoil but leaves unresolved the serious allegations levied by senior officials raising questions about corporate governance and accountability at the state agency.” (emphases added by complainants)

2.6. The complainants state that the advertisement for the position of CBRTA CEO, which was published in Sunday Times on 25 October 2021, did not prescribe a Masters degree as a minimum qualification – “an objectively verifiable fact”.

2.6.1. They regard the references to “qualification fraud” and “downgraded” job

specifications “to suit” Mboyi as an attempt to “besmirch” his appointment.

2.6.2. They further deny that “Mboyi falsely claimed to hold a master’s degree” and submit that this suggests that he is dishonest.

2.6.3. They also deny that Mboyi misrepresented his undergraduate and Honours qualifications and state that his qualifications were vetted before his appointment by the CBRTA.

2.6.4. Furthermore, they say that despite the CBRTA’s denial of these allegations, the publication did not undertake any reasonable steps to verify the allegations by contacting the university cited or requesting further information from the complainants.

2.7. The complainants note that they informed the publication in their response to its questions that the issues raised are similar to false allegations by a former employee dismissed by the CBRTA three years ago because he misrepresented his qualifications.

2.7.1. The CBRTA says it also informed Sunday World that, despite several attempts to get the former employee to submit evidence of his allegations, he did not provide any.

2.7.2. In addition, the CBRTA informed the publication of its preliminary investigation into the allegations in terms of its whistleblowing policy. It says the accusation that the “CBRTA has failed to investigate” the allegations in the memorandum is therefore not justified.

2.8. The complainants also claim that the statement that Mboyi was reinstated “on the Minister’s instruction” is false and irresponsible, and submit that the Department of Transport’s media statement provides background information on the matter.

2.8.1. They say this statement indicates that Mboyi was irregularly suspended and that the Transport Minister requested the board to regularise the suspension and investigate the allegations which led to Mboyi’s suspension. At no stage, they contend, was the board instructed to reinstate him or to lift his suspension.

2.8.2. Although the publication was aware of these facts, they say, it omitted this information either deliberately or negligently.

2.8.3. They also take issue with the claim that the “serious allegations levied by senior officials” remain “unresolved”. They state that this can be interpreted by a reasonable reader as an expression of the publication’s view that the allegations are credible, made by CBRTA officials, require investigation and remain unresolved.

2.8.4. They dismiss this as unreasonable in circumstances where Sunday World was informed that the whistleblower memorandum was penned by a disgruntled former employee. Despite this, they say, the publication still attributed the memorandum to senior CBRTA officials.

2.8.5. They argue that the claim that the “serious allegations levied by senior officials” remain “unresolved” also insinuates that Mboyi’s reinstatement was not properly effected or based on valid reasons and that it only occurred as a result of the Minister’s “direct intervention” or “instruction”.

2.8.6. In light of the above, they maintain that the publication failed to report in context and in a balanced manner without any material omission or distortion. In particular, they say, the publication failed to provide balanced reportage by not reporting that Mboyi’s initial suspension was not authorised by the provisions of the CBRTA’s governing legislation even though it was in possession of this information.

2.8.7. They further submit that the CEO’s suspension had nothing to do with allegations of maladministration or fraud relating to his qualifications.

2.8.8. They add that the publication engaged in misleading reporting by omitting detailed responses by the CBRTA “rebutting or placing in dispute” the whistleblower allegations and/or failing to verify the information in the whistleblower memorandum.

2.9. In brief, the complainants submit that the publication failed to report the news truthfully, accurately or fairly in contravention of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.

2.9.1. They also maintain that the allegations in the article were not presented within the

correct context of the facts nor was the article presented in a balanced manner in light of the

background provided by the Department of Transport’s media statement and the CBRTA’s response to the publication’s questions (Clause 1.2).

2.9.2. They further argue that the reliance on the allegation by whistleblowers that “the job specifications for the CEO post were downgraded” indicates a failure to verify doubtful information in contravention of Clause 1.7.

2.9.3. Despite the CBRTA’s letter of demand, they say, Sunday World also failed to comply with Clause 1.10 and make amends for presenting inaccurate information or comment on all its platforms where the article was published.

2.9.4. The complainants assert that the article is in breach of Clause 3.3.1 for relying on allegations which seek to depict Mboyi as a dishonest person who “misrepresented both his undergraduate and honours qualifications”. They maintain that the article lowered his esteem as a respected professional and CEO in the eyes of the general public.

2.9.5. They claim that the headline creates the “inference” that the CBRTA board ignored “serious allegations” levelled against Mboyi when it lifted his suspension, despite the CBRTA’s explanation in response to these allegations. As a result, they submit, the headline is inaccurate and misleading and hence in breach of Clause 10.1.

2.10. The complainants seek a retraction and apology, and demand that the wording be approved by them before publication. They further demand that the retraction and apology be given the same prominence as the original article. In addition, they request the deletion of the article on the publication’s online platforms.

Sunday World

2.11. The publication states that its response rests on two pillars: the role of the media as a watchdog on matters of public concern and the application of the Press Code to reporting on allegations “that are embedded within a formal, quasi-judicial investigative process, where the primary duty of verification appropriately rests with that official process”.

2.12. In this regard, the respondent submits that the contents of the article – the suspension and reinstatement of the CEO of a state-owned entity (SOE) as well as whistleblower allegations concerning him – are in the public interest.

2.12.1. It argues that SOEs are custodians of public funds and critical national infrastructure. Accordingly, it says, the public has a right to be informed about their governance.

2.12.2. The respondent maintains that the media fulfils its constitutional mandate and its “watchdog” role by bringing such matters to light. Doing so makes public scrutiny possible and holds “power” to account.

2.12.3. The publication notes that the article was based on a whistleblower memorandum and official correspondence. It adds that the CBRTA was given a full right of reply and that this was prominently included in the article in line with Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.

2.13. The respondent goes on to state that the “core events” in the article are part of an active formal process. It argues that the Press Code recognises that a distinction needs to be made when reporting on allegations that are part of a formal investigative or disciplinary process.

2.13.1. It maintains that, in such contexts, the primary duty to verify and adjudicate the underlying facts shifts to “the official, quasi-judicial structure” – in this case, the CBRTA board and its whistleblowing policy processes, under the oversight of the Transport Minister.

2.13.2. The publication argues that the role of the media is to report on the existence and progress of these formal processes. Furthermore, it maintains that not only must the public know the final outcome of these processes but also how serious internal allegations are managed.

2.13.3. It submits that the article performed this function by reporting on, one, the existence of a whistleblower memorandum that contains serious allegations; two, a key development in the formal process, namely the new Board’s decision to lift the CEO’s suspension; and, three, his reinstatement “while the … allegations reportedly remained in play”.

2.13.4. The respondent says that, given that the allegations were already within the ambit of the CBRTA’s own investigative procedures, the requirement of verification under Clause 1.7 of the Press Code was met. It further points out that it obtained and published the institution’s official response and, in addition, reported on the status of the formal process.

2.13.5. It says the demand that the publication should have independently verified academic records or job advertisements misunderstands this obligation. It contends that these matters are the subject of official scrutiny and that it is for the formal investigation to establish the truth – not the newspaper.

2.14. The respondent maintains that the article complies with Clause 1.1 of the Press Code and was substantially accurate in its reporting on the state of the formal investigation.

2.14.1. The publication points out that it clearly distinguished between reported allegations (by using the words “alleging”, “claims”, and “allegedly”) and matters of fact (such as the CEO’s suspension and reinstatement). It believes it fairly presented both the allegations and the CBRTA’s rebuttal.

2.15. The respondent submits that it took reasonable steps within the context of reporting on an official process in compliance with Clause 1.7 of the Press Code. It says it sought, obtained and published the position of the institution responsible for the formal investigation.

2.16. The respondent maintains that, although the allegations are serious, it was justified in publishing them because there is major public interest in the governance of an SOE and because the allegations are part of a formal internal process.

2.16.1. It submits that the constitutional protection of freedom of expression outweighs the affront to dignity “in this context of political and administrative discourse” and therefore meets the requirements of Clause 3.3 of the Press Code.

2.17. The respondent also believes that the headline is a concise and accurate summary of the central event in the article and its “controversial context”. As such, it claims, the headline is not misleading and is in line with Clause 10.1 of the Press Code.

2.18. Regarding the relief sought by the complainants, the respondent submits that it reported accurately on an important development in an ongoing formal governance process at a public entity, provided the public with crucial information and gave the subject a full right of reply.

2.18.1. The respondent argues that penalising the publication for the article would have a negative effect on the media’s ability to report on internal controversies in state institutions, “especially during the critical period when formal processes are underway but outcomes are pending”. It adds that doing so will undermine transparency and democratic accountability.

2.18.2. In conclusion, it maintains that the article meets the Press Code’s requirements, “particularly when interpreted in light of the context of reporting on formal investigations”. In light of this, it asks for the complaint to be dismissed.

Mboyi and CBRTA

2.19. The complainants contend that the publication’s response fails to engage meaningfully with the substance of their complaint and instead seeks to justify the publication of the article by relying broadly on the principles of public interest and the “watchdog” role of the media.

2.19.1. They state that the central issue remains whether the article complies with the Press Code; they maintain that it does not.

2.20. The complainants do not dispute that matters relating to the governance of a state-owned entity are of public interest. However, they argue that the respondent’s reliance on public interest is misplaced and does not absolve it from complying with the Press Code.

2.20.1. They reiterate their view that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.7 because it fails to meet the requirements to be truthful, accurate and fair. They also claim that the publication republished unverified and false allegations and that it omitted material facts that were known to the respondent at the time of publication.

2.20.2. They maintain that the result was a distorted and misleading account of the facts. As a result, they believe that invoking “public interest” cannot cure the breaches of the Press Code.

2.21. The complainants reject the respondent’s claim that the article is balanced on the basis that, among other things, it refers to the Department of Transport’s statement. They maintain that the article ignores “the factual matrix” provided in the media statement.

2.22. The complainants deny that the allegations reported in the article form part of a “formal” or “quasi-judicial” process and that, in light of this, the publication’s duty to verify information was therefore diminished.

2.22.1. They reiterate that the allegations in the article emanated from a “purported” whistleblower memorandum that was authored by a former employee who had been dismissed.

2.22.2. They argue that these allegations were expressly denied by the CBRTA and were not supported by any evidence despite requests. They add that the respondent was expressly informed of these facts before the article was published.

2.23. The complainants further state that the respondent seeks to impute “a primary onus” on the CBRTA to verify the allegations that form the subject of an investigation and uses that as a basis upon which to justify its publication of the article.

2.23.1. They contend that, while the publication may report on allegations arising from a formal investigation or disciplinary processes involving a statutory body such as the CBRTA, it cannot legally abdicate its own duty to publish fair, accurate and verified information.

2.23.2. And given the serious nature of the allegations, they state, the Press Code requires the publication to exercise “heightened caution and verification”.

2.23.3. They further maintain that it is incorrect to suggest that the publication was entitled to report the allegations without verifying the facts and contend that this is contrary to Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.

2.23.4. They add that the publication has a legal duty to report responsibly, fairly and to verify the accuracy of doubtful information.

2.24. The complainants submit that the statements that the CEO position required a Masters degree, that Mboyi misrepresented his qualifications and that he was reinstated “on the Minister’s instruction” were “objectively verifiable”.

2.24.1. They reiterate that the advertisement for the CEO position did not require a Masters degree, that Mboyi’s qualifications were vetted and that the Department of Transport confirmed that his suspension was irregular and required regularisation.

2.24.2. They state that these facts were either known to the publication or were “reasonably ascertainable” prior to publication. They believe that the failure to do so contravenes Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.

2.25. The complainants deny that the article was balanced and contend that it omitted material facts, including that Mboyi’s suspension was irregular, that the allegations emanated from a dismissed former employee and that no evidence had been provided to substantiate his allegations.

2.25.1. Instead, they say, the article presented the allegations as emanating from senior officials and created the impression that they were credible. They maintain that these omissions and mischaracterisation resulted in a distorted and misleading account in contravention of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

2.26. The complainants claim that the respondent’s reliance on the use of qualifiers such as “alleged” does not make it compliant with the Press Code.

2.26.1. They contend that the overall tenor and effect of the article was to convey that Mboyi was dishonest, that he misrepresented his qualifications and that his appointment was irregular.

2.26.2. Furthermore, they submit that the statement that the allegations remain “unresolved” conveys the impression that the allegations were credible and required further investigation. However, they say, this was unreasonable when the publication had been informed that the allegations were false, unproven and came from a disgruntled former employee.

2.27. The complainants further maintain that the headline creates the impression that the “serious allegations” were credible and that the CBRTA Board disregarded these allegations when, in fact, Mboyi’s suspension was irregular. As a result, it argues, the headline contravenes Clause 10.1 of the Press Code.

2.28. The complainants state that, despite their letter of demand to the publication, it failed to issue any retraction or correction and also failed to publish an apology.

2.29. In conclusion, the complainants reiterate their request for relief (see point 2.10).

3. Discussion

3.1. Before addressing the details of this complaint, it is necessary to comment on Sunday World’s protracted delay in complying with the Public Advocate’s requests on 19 January 2026 and 2 March 2026 to respond to the complaint.

3.1.1. There was no response even when the Public Advocate informed the publication on 20 April 2026 of his intention to forward the complaint to a Press Ombud for adjudication at the request of the complainants.

3.1.2. After perusing the complaint, I requested the Public Advocate on 23 April 2026 to approach Sunday World again and give the publication a final opportunity to provide a response within seven days. It is to their credit that they submitted a response on 30 April 2026.

3.1.3. Failure to do so would have been to disregard its commitment to submit itself to the adjudication processes of the Press Council and would have seriously undermined the mission of the Press Council to provide a mechanism to co-regulate the media.

3.1.4. For their part, the complainants deserve to be commended for providing a response to the respondent’s reply despite Sunday World’s undue delay in responding. By so doing, they showed the utmost respect for the Press Council and its complaints procedures.

3.2. Complaint 1: There is merit in the complaint that the article provides an unfair account of the role of the Transport Minister in Mboyi’s reinstatement as CBRTA CEO (point 2.8).

3.2.1. It did so in spite of the fact that, in response to a question sent to the publication, the CBRTA drew its attention to a media statement issued by the Department of Transport on 7 November 2025 – more than a month before the article in question was published.

3.2.2. According to this media statement, Mboyi’s suspension was irregular in that it did not meet the requirements of the CBRTA’s governing legislation (points 2.2 and 2.8.6).

3.2.3. The media statement goes on to explain that “… the Board does not possess the authority to suspend the CEO without the concurrence of the shareholder [the Transport Minister], making this suspension therefore unlawful”.

3.2.4. It is against this background that the Minister instructed the new CBRTA Board to “regularise” the suspension of the CEO. In addition, according to the Transport Department’s media statement, the new Board was instructed “to see if the administrative issues raised by the former Board hold any merit”.

3.2.5. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the new Board was expected to provide a report on these matters to the Deputy Transport Minister – not to the Minister.

3.2.6. The information provided in the Department’s media statement therefore contradicts the insinuation in the article that Mboyi’s suspension was lifted improperly by the new Board “following direct intervention from … Creecy”.

3.2.7. Moreover, it is important to note that Sunday World was well aware of the Department’s media statement and reported on it in an article published on 26 November 2025, “Transport department hides behind confidentiality over double standards”.[1] To disregard the contents of this statement in the article published on 14 December 2025 is therefore inexcusable.

3.2.8. In view of the failure to report fairly on the Transport Minister’s role in Mboyi’s reinstatement and the omission of certain relevant facts, the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.3. Complaint 2: The complainants dispute the claim that the whistleblower memorandum was written by senior CBRTA officials and maintain that it was written by a single former employee (points 2.8.4 and 2.22.1).

3.3.1. However, they do not provide any conclusive evidence to support this claim. They simply assert that the allegations in the memorandum are “similar” to those made by a former employee who was dismissed several years ago for misrepresenting his qualifications.

3.3.2. The publication does not specifically address the authorship of the memorandum in its response to the complaint except to state that the article was based on a detailed whistleblower memorandum and official correspondence (point 2.12.3).

3.3.3. For the record, the article notes that the memorandum was “penned by senior agency officials, including former employee Botsang Moiloa” (my emphasis), who is presumably the former employee to whom the complainants are referring.

3.3.4. In any event, this aspect of the complaint may simply be a case of splitting hairs. The more important issue at stake, arguably, is whether there is any substance in the allegations in the memorandum. And, as the complainants acknowledge, the CBRTA is obliged to investigate such allegations in terms of its whistleblowing policy.

3.3.5. In light of the above, and the fact that the article reflects the CBRTA’s view on the authorship of the memorandum, there are insufficient grounds to conclude that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

3.4. Complaint 3: The claim in the article that the CBRTA did not investigate the allegations in the whistleblower memorandum is without merit. The Agency conducted a preliminary investigation into the allegations in terms of its policy on whistleblowing (point 2.7.2).

3.4.1. The CBRTA also notes in its reply to the questions sent by the publication that it generally conducts a preliminary investigation into allegations in line with its whistleblowing policy. After such an investigation, it then determines whether an in-depth investigation is necessary.

3.4.2. The CBRTA further informs the publication: “The new Board is currently processing the issues that have been handed over and is working with Management to close any outstanding issues including looking into all the documents and issues raised prior to the CEO’s suspension.”

3.4.3. The publication, inexplicably, did not reflect this information in the article. Accordingly, the claim that the allegations in the whistleblower memorandum were not investigated is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.5. Complaint 4: The complainants object to the claim in the last paragraph that the “serious allegations levied by senior officials” remain “unresolved” (points 2.8.3 and 2.26.2).

3.5.1. They again deny that the memorandum was written by senior CBRTA officials. In addition, they maintain that this part of the article insinuates that Mboyi was reinstated improperly and that this only occurred as a result of the Minister’s “direct intervention” or “instruction” (point 2.8.5).

3.5.2. Both these aspects have been adequately addressed under points 3.2 and 3.3 above.

3.5.3. The complainants further suggest that the reference in the article to unresolved allegations can be interpreted by a reasonable reader as an expression of the publication’s view that the allegations are credible.

3.5.4. However, as the CBRTA acknowledges in its complaint, the new board was still processing the matters that were handed over to it and was still working with management to complete any outstanding issues.

3.5.5. In other words, by the CBRTA’s own account, the investigation into the allegations in the memorandum was not yet concluded. As such, the issue of whether there is any credibility in the allegations was indeed unresolved when the article was published.

3.5.6. The article is therefore not in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code in this regard.

3.6. Complaint five: The complainants deny that a Masters degree is the minimum qualification for the position of CBRTA CEO and that this requirement was downgraded to accommodate Mboyi (points 2.6 and 2.9.2). They further complain that the publication made no attempt to verify this information.

3.6.1. The respondent maintains that it was not necessary to verify this information in view of the fact that these allegations were contained in a memorandum which is the subject of “a formal, quasi-judicial investigative process” by the CBRTA (points 2.11 and 2.13).

3.6.2. There are certainly grounds for this argument. Firstly, the CBRTA acknowledges that the whistleblower memorandum is subject to an internal investigation (point 2.7.2) and that the new Board is processing any outstanding issues raised before Mboyi was suspended (point 3.4.2).

3.6.3. And, secondly, the complainants recognise in their reply to the respondents that the publication may report on allegations arising from a formal investigation or disciplinary processes involving a statutory body such as the CBRTA (point 2.23.1).

3.6.4. Where the two parties part ways is in the rider added by the complainants that they do not believe reporting such allegations absolves the respondent from its duty to publish fair, accurate and verified information.

3.6.5. While the media is indeed required to publish information that is accurate and verified, this obligation does not extend as far as conducting its own investigation into allegations that are the subject of an official inquiry.

3.6.6. As Deputy Press Ombud Franz Krüger noted recently in Baepi vs City Press: “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]

3.6.7. He added: “Reporters are not courts. The Press Code makes it clear that claims can be reported even if they are not fully verified.”

3.6.8. The key consideration – in terms of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code – is whether such reports clearly distinguish between what is fact and “opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions”. The article in question complies with this requirement.

3.6.9. Furthermore, the article reflects the CBRTA’s viewpoint on these allegations and quotes its spokesperson dismissing them as being without foundation.

3.6.10. In other words, the allegations contained in the whistleblower memorandum were presented as no more than that – allegations. The article did not present them as uncontested matters of fact.

3.6.11. To quote Acting Press Ombud Johan Retief in YNF Engineering CC and Jade Orren vs News24: “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.”[3] (emphases in the original)

3.6.12. Or, put another way, the primary responsibility of the media is to report fairly and accurately on an official inquiry that is under way. It is not required to conduct its own parallel investigation in order to verify allegations that are the subject of such an inquiry.

3.6.13. On the basis of these reasons, the article is not in breach of Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.

3.7. Complaint six: This complaint also relates to claims that the respondent failed to investigate the allegations in the whistleblower memorandum including, among others, that Mboyi misrepresented his undergraduate and Honours degrees, and that the requirement of a Masters degree for the CEO position was downgraded to accommodate him (points 2.9.4 and 2.6.1).

3.7.1. The complainants also dispute the allegations in the memorandum that Mboyi instructed HR personnel to alter his academic records and that he subsequently presided over a purge of staff (see point 2.5).

3.7.2. However, for much the same reasons outlined under point 3.6, the article is not deemed to be in breach of the Press Code. In brief, the contents of the whistleblower memorandum were clearly reported as no more than allegations and the CBRTA was granted a fair opportunity to respond to these allegations.

3.7.3. In addition, the report on the allegations in the memorandum were in the public interest. The CBRTA was established by an Act of Parliament to “provide for [the] co-operative and co-ordinated provision of advice, regulation, facilitation and law enforcement in respect of cross-border road transport by the public and private sectors”.[4]

3.7.4. Matters of governance in the CBRTA therefore certainly fall within the ambit of public interest, which is described in the Press Code’s preamble as “information of legitimate interest or importance to citizens”.

3.7.5. The complainants do not dispute that reporting on matters relating to the governance of a state-owned entity is in the public interest (point 2.20), but insist that the respondent is nevertheless still obliged to comply with Clauses 1.1 and 1.7 of the Press Code.

3.7.6. However, Clause 3.3 expressly states that matters involving dignity and reputation may be overridden in certain circumstances, including “if it was reasonable for the information to be communicated because it was prepared in accordance with the acceptable principles of journalistic conduct”.

3.7.7. As argued under point 3.6, the article sufficiently meets this requirement and is thereby not in breach of the Press Code.

3.7.8. The CBRTA also regards as defamatory the allegations that Mboyi’s employment was irregular and that it lifted his suspension irregularly (point 2.5). This aspect of the complaint was addressed more appropriately under point 3.2.

3.8. Complaint seven: The complainants submit that the headline wrongfully creates the impression that the CBRTA board ignored “serious allegations” against Mboyi when it lifted his suspension (points 2.9.5 and 2.27).

3.8.1. There is certainly merit in their claim. The headline ignores the fact that the lifting of Mboyi’s suspension was intended to correct a procedural or legal irregularity (see point 3.2.6).

3.8.2. The use of the word “despite” renders the headline misleading because it suggests that the CBRTA acted inappropriately and disregarded the allegations against Mboyi when, in fact, it lifted the suspension in order to correct an irregularity.

3.8.3. The publication was aware of this in light of the explanation offered by the CBRTA to the publication and in view of the statement issued by the Transport Department more than a month before the article was published (and on which it previously reported).

3.8.4. Based on the above, the headline is in breach of Clause 10.1 of the Press Code.

4. Findings

Complaint 1: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 is upheld for the reasons set out in points 3.2 to 3.2.8 of my Discussion.

Complaint 2: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.3.1 to 3.3.5.

Complaint 3: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 is upheld for the reasons set out in points 3.4 to 3.4.3.

Complaint 4: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.5.3 to 3.5.6.

Complaint 5: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.7 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.6.1 to 3.6.13.

Complaint 6: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 3.3 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.7.2 to 3.7.8.

Complaint 7: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 10.1 is upheld for the reasons set out in points 3.8.1 to 3.8.4.

Firstly, Sunday World is required to publish an apology to Mr Mboyi and the CBRTA in print and online for breaching Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 10.1 by failing to report fairly on the Transport Minister’s role in Mr Mboyi’s reinstatement and the omission of certain relevant facts; failing to report that the allegations in the whistleblower memorandum were investigated by the CBRTA; and for publishing a misleading headline that suggests that the CBRTA disregarded the allegations against Mr Mboyi when, in fact, it lifted the suspension to correct a procedural irregularity.

Secondly, the apology should be approved by me prior to publication and should be published with a headline including the words “apology”, “Mboyi” and “CBRTA”.

Thirdly, the respondent should update the online article and should publish a note under the headline: “NOTE: This article has been updated. See Editor’s Note below, including an apology to Lwazi Mboyi and the CBRTA.” The Editor’s Note should state when and how the article has been updated, and should include the full apology to Mr Mboyi and the CBRTA as directed above.

Fourthly, the update should be approved by me prior to publication.

Fifthly, the online headline must be amended to reflect the contents of the updated article.

The above should:

• be published online 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 online on Sunday World’s landing page for 24 hours as well as on all its platforms where the article was published; and
• be published online on the landing page with a link to the original article.

In addition, the print and online apologies should:

• refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
• end with the sentence, “Visit presscouncil.org.zafor 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

Tyrone August

Deputy Press Ombudsman

29 May 2026

[1] https://sundayworld.co.za/news/transport-department-hides-behind-confidentiality-over-double-standards/

[2] https://www.presscouncil.org,za/2026/05/20/baepi-vs-city-press/

[3] https://www.presscouncil.org.za/2026/04/28/ynf-engineering-cc-and-jade-orren-v-news24/

[4] https://www.cbrta.co.za/about/legislation