Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Talane and Associates Attorneys v News24

, ,

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint number: PCSA 000679

Author: Norman Masungwini

Headline: How Limpopo legislature’s secretary steered millions to a connected law firm

Publication Date: 21 June 2026

Date lodged: 21 June 2026

Link to story: https://www.news24.com/politics/how-limpopo-legislatures-secretary-steered-millions-to-a-connected-law-firm-20260620-1056

Disclaimer

  1. Much has been said about the reason(s) for the suspension of Dr Timothy Maake as Secretary of the Limpopo Legislature. As this is not reflected in the article (it happened after publication), I am disregarding all such references.
  2. This also goes for arguments regarding public interest, as that is not in dispute.

Particulars

  1. This finding is based on correspondence by Nomsizi Talane, director of the law firm, Talane Associates Attorneys (henceforth: “Talane”), and by Norman Masungwini, senior political reporter of News24, as well as its public editor, George Claassen (henceforth: “News24”).

The article

  1. The article says or implies that the appointment of Maake in November 2024 was controversial and that the appointment of Talane to the Legislature’s panel of attorneys (in the same month) could have amounted to a conflict of interest and nepotism.
  2. There reportedly were family connections – Talane’s founder and principal was the father-in-law of Maake’s nephew.
  3. “Between September 2025 and March 2026, Talane and Associates became the service provider paid most by the legislature, receiving R12.5 million in that period alone.”

The complaint

Background

  1. Talane says that the journalist sent it a list of questions, to which it responded – categorically denying that:

a. it was appointed to the panel of attorneys in November 2024 – the firm says it is still not in the panel of attorneys of the legislature to date;

b. a son-in-law of the founder and principal of the firm is:

    • the nephew of the Secretary of the Limpopo legislature; and
    • an employee of the firm, Talane and Associates Attorneys.
  2. Despite this, News24 published a story that persists in linking Talane to Maake.

The complaint

  1. Talane complains that the article is in breach of the following sections of the Press Code, for the following reasons:

a. 1.1: It is inaccurate, false and unfair to have asserted, as a fact, that there exists a family relationship between Talane and Maake – there is no evidence to support this claim. In earlier correspondence, Talane also denies that her husband works for Talane. The firm says that, if there is such a record[1], it should be informed so that this mistake can be rectified;

b. 1.2: The story negligently omits its clear denial of its appointment to the panel of attorneys. The firm says it clarified that it was appointed to conduct a forensic investigation. “Reporting a denied allegation as established fact is a material misrepresentation”;

c. 1.8: While News24 did seek comment, the journalist failed to accurately reflect the detailed response provided by Talane, rendering the right of reply ineffective;

d. 3.3: The persistent implication of a conflict of interest via an alleged family relationship is unnecessarily harmful to the firm’s reputation; and

e. 10.1 : The headline is misleading, as it states or strongly implies that the firm is linked to Maake.

Relief sought

  1. Talane requests this office to direct News24 to:

a. publish a retraction of the false statements regarding the family relationship and the 2024 appointment, as well as of the headline;

b. direct News24 to publish an apology with appropriate prominence on all its platforms where the article was published; and

c. correct the inaccuracies online and in any future references to this story.

Reply to the complaint

In general

Introductory comments

  1. News24 replies that the complaint is without merit and that it should be dismissed in its entirety – the article resulted from rigorous, responsible investigative journalism based on verifiable documentary evidence and published in compliance with the Press Code.
  2. It says the reporter examined Talane’s appointment to the Limpopo Legislature and payments of about R12.5 million made between September 2025 and March 2026. Using evidence such as CSD and official payment records, the investigation allegedly found a significant family connection between a senior figure at the firm and Maake, which was not publicly disclosed – an issue that was clearly in the public interest.
  3. News24 submits that the following material facts, sourced from official documentary records, underpinned the article and remain uncontested or, where contested, are supported by the following independent primary evidence:

The appointment

  1. Talane was appointed to conduct forensic investigation services for the Limpopo Legislature for the period June 2025 to May 2026.
  2. Maake assumed office in November 2024 – the same month in which the firm’s appointment process was allegedly initiated or finalised.
  3. Talane’s own response confirms the appointment and its timing. “The dispute regarding whether the appointment was to a ‘panel’ or specifically for ‘forensic investigation services’ is a distinction that does not materially alter the central facts reported.”

The family / relationship link

  1. The CSD lists Dr Tebogo Ramoshaba as an employee of Talane.
  2. Talane’s written response to News24 confirms that Ramoshaba is married to Ms Nomsizi Talane.
  3. Talane was afforded the full opportunity to rebut the statement that Ramoshaba and Maake were related, which was reported in the article.

Payments

  1. Official payment records confirm that Talane received approximately R12.5 million from the Limpopo Legislature between September 2025 and March 2026. This includes a R4 million payment in November 2025, during the Legislature’s “taking the legislature to the people” campaign.
  2. A further R3.2 million was processed on 25 March 2026 – two days before the ANC provincial conference.
  3. Talane did not substantively explain the basis, breakdown, or justification for these payments in its response, directing News24 instead to the Limpopo Legislature.

Prior business relationship

  1. Talane previously conducted work for the Mopani District Municipality during the period when Maake served as its municipal manager (2005–2016). The firm did not deny this. “This prior relationship constitutes relevant background context to the pattern of conduct being investigated.”

Reply to the alleged breaches of the Press Code

Clause 1.1 – truthful, accurate, fair

  1. News24 submits that the article was based on:

a. official CSD records listing Ramoshaba as someone who did extensive work for Talane, including registering the company;

b. official payment records confirming payments totalling R12.5 million from the Limpopo Legislature to the firm;

c. confirmed public records regarding Maake’s appointment as Legislature Secretary in November 2024; and

d. Talana’s written response, which was obtained prior to publication, and which was materially incorporated into the article.

25. It says that Talane’s denial of the family relationship between Ramoshaba and Maake was included in the article. Moreover, the article did not state the connection as an absolute or uncontested fact – it merely reported what official records disclosed and presented the complainant’s denial. “This is the hallmark of accurate and fair investigative journalism.”

26. News24 adds that the distinction Talane draws between a “panel appointment” and an appointment for “forensic investigation services” is immaterial to the core facts reported – namely, that the firm was appointed by a Legislature whose most senior administrator has a family connection to the firm’s principal, and that significant public funds were paid to the firm.

Clause 1.2 – context, balanced

  1. News24 submits that the article was balanced and contextualised in that:

a. Talane’s response – denying the family link, disputing the “panel” description, confirming the forensic appointment, and asserting the legitimacy of its work – was reported;

b. the article reported the scale and nature of the investigation (covering 2019–2025 financial years and uncovering estimated irregularities of approximately R136 million) as provided by Talane;

c. the article contextualised the payments within the broader picture of the legislature’s spending and procurement processes; and

d. the timing of the R3.2 million payment relative to the ANC provincial conference was reported as a factual observation, not as a concluded finding of wrongdoing.

Clause 1.8 – Right of reply

  1. News24 submits that News24 did give Talane a right of reply and that it was reported.

Clause 3.3 – Dignity and reputation

  1. News24 denies that the article is in breach of this clause as the reportage is in the public interest, and that the following facts reported are true or substantially true:

a. Talane was appointed by the Limpopo Legislature, which was confirmed by the firm;

b. Ramoshaba is married to the director of the firm – this was also confirmed by Talane;

c. The CSD lists Ramoshaba as an employee of the firm;

d. The firm received approximately R12.5 million from Legislature – this was sourced from official payment records;

e. Maake assumed office as Legislature Secretary in November 2024 – this is a matter of public record; and

f. The firm previously worked for Mopani District Municipality. Maake was the municipal manager at the same municipality before he was fired – this is not denied by Talane.

30. It says the only contested fact is the precise nature of the family relationship between Ramoshaba and Maake (“son-in-law/nephew versus no relationship”). This, it submits, is a single, disputed data point within a substantially verified factual matrix. The article correctly reported the CSD-sourced claim alongside Talane’s denial. “A single contested element, handled transparently, does not render an otherwise factually sound article a breach of Clause 3.3,” it opines.

Clause 10.1 – headlines

  1. News24 submits that the headline accurately and reasonably reflects the substance of the article because:

a. the word “steered” reflects the documented factual matrix: the Legislature Secretary’s office was at the centre of the appointment and payment processes scrutinised in the article. It does not assert criminal conduct – it describes a process of direction and facilitation, which the evidence supports;

b. “millions” accurately reflects the R12.5 million paid to the firm from public funds – this is not contested;

c. “connected law firm” accurately reflects the documented connection: the firm’s director is married to a person listed on the CSD as an employee of the firm, and that person has a family link to the Legislature’s Secretary; and

d. the headline is proportionate and consistent with the investigative nature of the article.

Public interest

  1. News24 goes to great lengths to stress why this story is in the public interest. I am not going to belabour this matter, as it is not in dispute.
  2. Let me just quote from its conclusion, though: “The Press Code itself recognises that reputational interests may be overridden where public interest and substantially true facts are established. Both conditions are met here. The complaint, if upheld, would have a chilling effect on legitimate investigative journalism in South Africa’s public interest.”

Material admissions by Talane

  1. News24 submits that Talane’s written response to its pre-publication enquiry, which was provided voluntarily and incorporated into the article, contains several admissions that substantially corroborate the article’s factual foundation:

a. Talane confirms: “the firm was appointed (via procurement) to provide forensic investigation services to the Limpopo Legislature for June 2025–May 2026”;

b. “Dr Tebogo Ramoshaba is married to Ms Nomsizi Elizabeth Talane” – the director of the firm;

c. Talane does not deny prior procurement work for Mopani District Municipality;

d. Talane does not deny receiving approximately R12.5 million from the Legislature; and

e. Talane confirms the investigation “uncovered irregularities and estimated losses of approximately R136 million”, which further contextualises the significance of the appointment.

Relief sought

  1. News24 argues that the article is not in breach of any clause of the Press Code and therefore no sanction should be directed.

Rejoinder

The appointment

  1. Talane says that the article’s allegation that it was appointed to the Limpopo Legislature’s “panel of attorneys” in November 2024 (the same month Maake assumed office) is false and misleading – this created an inference of improper influence directly due to family ties.
  2. Instead, the firm was appointed to provide forensic investigation services from June2025 to May 2026, following a competitive procurement process to investigate financial and administrative irregularities from financial year 2019 until 2025.
  3. News24 published this falsehood, even though Talane had denied that it was appointed to the Limpopo Legislature’s panel of attorneys in November 2024.
  4. Talane says it informed News24 that Ramoshaba was not related to Maake. The firm argues that its reporting of this denial does not absolve the publication. “Publishing a defamatory falsehood with a denial does not render the publication accurate – it merely evidences that the publication knew the claim was disputed and chose to publish it anyway.”
  5. The firm also contends that CSD does not list marital statuses and employees, but directors. Reliance on CSD listing as a defence is therefore tantamount to dishonesty.

Breaches of the Press Code

Clause 1.1

  1. Talane says News24‘s reliance on “official records” is misplaced because:

a. the CSD record does not prove a family relationship – an alleged CSD listing Ramoshaba as doing work for the firm does not establish that he is Maake’s nephew. “This is a leap of logic unsupported by the primary evidence… We since requested the listing to correct an error in the CSD, but to date the Mr. Norman Masungwini failed or refused to furnish such CSD evidence”;

b. News24 published the “panel appointment” claim, despite its express denial;

c. the word “steered” in the headline implies misconduct or improper influence – yet the article provides no evidence of improper steering;

d. the article departed from the facts by:

i. publishing a false “panel appointment” narrative despite being informed it was false;

ii. explicitly stating a family relationship with no proof at all; and

iii. characterising procurement as “steering” without evidence.

Clause 1.2

  1. Talane says balance requires more than including a denial. The article omits to report that:

a. its appointment was for forensic investigation services (June 2025–May 2026), and not for a November 2024 panel appointment. “This materially altered the narrative. News24 reported the denial as a minor caveat but maintained the false narrative as the dominant framing”;

b. it had uncovered R136 million in irregularities. “This context would have demonstrated the legitimacy and public importance of the firm’s work – yet it was downplayed and only referred to as ‘an investigation’ by News24”;

c. it had been appointed through a competitive, advertised procurement process that complied with the Legislature’s prescribed procedures. Talane argues that the article omits this important context because acknowledging the competitive bidding process would weaken its suggestion that the November 2024 appointments of Maake and the firm were improperly linked; and

d. there is no evidence that Maake personally directed the procurement. The word “steered” is a conclusion unsupported by the facts presented. The attempt to evade this by News24 by claiming that the procurement was “either initiated or finalised in November 2024” is shameful and falls beneath the standard of the calibre of News24‘s standing.

43. Talane adds that, while News24 technically complied with the obligation to give it a right of reply, the short deadline (less than 24 hours for a complex 10-question enquiry) and selective presentation of the responses undermined the spirit of the clause. This, the firm argues, did not afford it “reasonable time” to respond, as prescribed by Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.

Clause 3.3

  1. Talane says this clause provides that the dignity and reputation of subjects may be overridden if the facts reported are true or substantially true, or if the reportage amounts to protected comment based on facts that are true or reasonably true. However, the core facts were not true, in that:

a. the firm was not appointed to a “panel of attorneys” in November 2024;

b. Ramoshaba was not Maake’s nephew; and

c. there was no evidence that Maake had “steered” millions.

45. The firm says that News24’s argument that a “single contested fact” does not render the article in breach of the Press Code, is incorrect. “The entire article’s premise – that the appointment was improper because of an undisclosed family relationship – depends entirely on the alleged family connection. Without that connection, there is no story… The family relationship is not a peripheral detail; it is the entire basis for the article’s existence.”

46. It submits that the false allegations substantially and unjustly lowered its reputation.

Clause 10.1

  1. Talane says the headline is misleading because the word(s):

a. “steered” unfairly implies improper direction, and connotes intentional, secretive, and possibly corrupt influence – the article fails to prove that Maake directed the procurement and/or that he was Ramoshaba’s uncle; and

b. “connected law firm” are based on a disputed family relationship.

48. The firm adds that the headline misrepresents the article’s substance, which includes its denial of a family relationship. “The headline does not reflect this qualification, creating a false impression for readers who only see the headline,” the argument goes.

Material admissions

  1. Talane submits that News24‘s defence contains the following significant admissions that undermine its position:

a. It’s reliance on disputed information. News24 admits the family connection is “a single, disputed data point” but claims this does not render the article inaccurate. “This admission reveals that News24 published a claim it knew was disputed and chose to present it as the central narrative, in specified terms of a Nephew of senior official without an iota of evidence”;

b. News24’s argument that the distinction between “panel” and “specific appointment” is “immaterial” is disingenuous—the “panel” narrative suggests a broader, ongoing relationship with the Legislature, while the forensic investigation appointment is a specific, time-bound procurement; and

c. News24 concedes that “the only contested fact is the precise nature of the family relationship” and that the article does not assert “criminal conduct”. This undermines the headline’s “steered” language and the assertion that appointment of Talane was done at the same month Maake was appointment – it suggests improper conduct or corruption.

50. The firm says News24 attempts to rely on the “substantial truth” doctrine, arguing that even if one fact is contested, the article is “substantially true”. It says that this argument fails for the following reasons:

a. The “substantial truth” doctrine requires that the core allegation be true. In this case, the core allegation is that Maake improperly influenced the payment of funds to a firm connected to his family, specifically to a nephew. The improper influence (“steering”) is unsupported by any evidence from News24; and

b. News24 admits the “panel appointment” claim was corrected by Talane before publication, yet it published the false version anyway. This is not a “minor distinction” – it fundamentally misrepresents the nature of the appointment.

In conclusion

  1. Talane says News24 argues that its article is “substantially true”, despite disputed facts. The firm challenges this argument because:

a. the central allegation, that Maake improperly influenced payments to a firm linked to his nephew, is false as there is no family relationship and there is no evidence that he improperly directed the payments; and

b. News24 acknowledges that the firm corrected the claim about a “panel appointment” before publication, yet the article publishes the incorrect version – which is a significant misrepresentation, and not a minor error.

Analysis

Clause 1.1 of the Press Code: “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”

  1. The sentence in dispute, which alleges a family relationship, reads, “The firm’s founder and principal is the father-in-law of Maake’s nephew.”
  2. The allegations (which are denied by Talane) are that Ramoshaba:

a. is Maake’s nephew; and

b. works for Talane and Associates, along with his wife – which could raise the possibility of a conflict of interest.

54. I have no reason to distrust News24’s information that Ramoshaba is a registered employee of Talane, according to the CSD.

55. I also note that the firm does not dispute that the husband is registered with the CSD – it only denies that it is employing him. In earlier correspondence, Talane says, “Kindly furnish us with proof from CSD platform, to assist us to correct that error if it does exist.”

56. If the information at News24’s disposal is wrong, it cannot be blamed for it. In that case, the problem lies elsewhere.

57. My recommendation to News24 is to communicate its information on this matter to Talane.

58. The central question, though, is if there is any evidence that Maake and Ramoshaba are related – if not, there can be no possibility of a conflict of interest (unless, of course, there is some other type of relationship – which is unknown to me as it has not been raised by any party). In such a case, the whole story would fall flat.

59. I have spoken to News24’s source, whom I believe to be reliable and who wants to remain anonymous, and I am satisfied that News24 quoted him correctly.

60. However, I need to state that it is dangerous to use a single anonymous source, without any verification (if there was such verification, I was not informed about it). While the Press Code does not prohibit it, it remains a matter to be cautious about.

61. This means that the journalist should have used the word “alleged”, and also that it was safer to mention that this allegation was based on a single, anonymous source.

62. It is also significant that News24 says that its investigation “allegedly” found a significant family connection between Maake and Talane (see Point 12 above) – while the article itself states it as a fact.

63. Moreover, News24’s contention that the article did not state the connection between Talane and Maake as an absolute or uncontested fact – it says it merely reported what official records disclosed and presented the complainant’s denial (see Point 25 above) – is not correct. The sentence in dispute does indeed state it as a fact. It reads, “The firm’s founder and principal is the father-in-law of Maake’s nephew.”

Clause 1.2 of the Code: “The media shall present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarisation”

  1. The sentence in dispute reads, “Talane and Associates was appointed to the legislature’s panel of attorneys in November 2024, the same month Maake took office.”
  2. The complaint is that:

a. it is false to have stated the above – instead, the firm was appointed in June 2025–May 2026 to conduct a forensic investigation; and

b. the article omits to report Talane’s denial regarding the alleged appointment in the panel of attorneys.

66. Firstly, I have no evidence that the statement in dispute is correct (or inaccurate, for that matter).

67. I note that News24’s asserts, as documented under Point 15 above, that Talane’s appointment was “allegedly” initiated or finalised in November 2024 – the same month that Maake assumed office. The use of the word “allegedly” raises questions with me. Why “allegedly”, while the article states it as a fact?

68. The allegation about “the same month” is serious, as it implies that there was a link between Maake and Talane. The mere use of the word “alleged” in the article would have solved the matter.

69. To this, News24 adds: “The dispute regarding whether the appointment was to a ‘panel’ or specifically for ‘forensic investigation services’ is a distinction that does not materially alter the central facts reported.” However, the matter goes deeper than a mere “distinction” between two phrases – it is the link between Talane and Maake (in the same month that he took office) that matters.

70. Regarding Point 65 (b): Talane’s denial is reported towards the end of the article. It says, “In a response, the director of Talane and Associates, Nomsizi Talane, said the firm was not appointed to the legislature panel in November 2024…”

71. I would have preferred that this denial be published immediately after the statement of fact, as recorded above. However, the fact that the denial was published (albeit much later down in the article) means that there was no breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code regarding this specific issue.

Clause 1.8: “The media shall seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication, except when they might be prevented from reporting, or evidence destroyed, or sources intimidated. Such a subject should be afforded reasonable time to respond; if unable to obtain comment, this shall be stated”

  1. Talane complains that, while News24 did seek comment, the journalist failed to accurately reflect the detailed response provided by Talane, rendering the right of reply ineffective.
  2. News24 did obtain comment from Talane. I also note that the latter indicated that the firm would respond in time. Therefore, its defence in its rejoinder that she had not been given reasonable time to respond cannot hold water.

Clause 3.3: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation, which may be overridden only if it is in the public interest and if the facts reported are true or substantially true…”

  1. The complaint is that the implication of a conflict of interest due to family relationship is unnecessarily harmful to Talane’s dignity and reputation.
  2. Given that I have accepted that the family relationship is an allegation which is presented as a fact, it follows that this part of the complaint should also be upheld.

Clause 10.1: “Headlines … shall not mislead the public and shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report or photograph in question”

  1. The article was headlined, “How Limpopo legislature’s secretary steered millions to a connected law firm.”
  2. Talane notably does not complain about the “millions” mentioned in the headline – the complaint is limited to the “misleading” connection between the firm and Maake.
  3. Given that I have accepted that the family relationship between Talane and Maake should have been presented as an allegation, if follows that the word “connected” in the headline should have been attributed or placed in inverted commas.
  4. The complaint about the word “steered” does not hold water, as correctly argued by News24 under Point 31 (a) above.

Finding

Family ties

  1. The statement that “the firm’s founder and principal is the father-in-law of Maake’s nephew” is presented as a fact, while it should have been treated as an allegation. This is in breach of Section 1.3 of the Press Code which says that the media shall clearly present allegations as such.
  2. The complaint about Ramoshaba’s employment ay Talane is dismissed.

Appointment

  1. The statement that “Talane and Associates was appointed to the legislature’s panel of attorneys in November 2024, the same month Maake took office”, presents an allegation as a fact. This is in breach of Section 1.3 of the Code.
  2. The complaint that the article omits to report Talane’s denial regarding the alleged appointment in the panel of attorneys is dismissed.

Right of reply

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Dignity and reputation

  1. Because the article presents crucial allegations as facts, it follows that I also believe that the reportage has caused unnecessary harm to Talane’s dignity and reputation. This is in breach of Section 3.3 of the Code.

The headline

  1. The use of the word “connected”, stating an allegation as a fact in the headline, is in breach of Section 10.1 of the Code.
  2. The complaint about the word “steered” is dismissed.

PLEASE NOTE:

  1. I am NOT finding that the report was inaccurate – I simply do not have any evidence to prove or disprove either side of this coin. It is merely about (serious) allegations that were not presented as such, but as facts.

Sanction

  1. Newes24 is directed to apologise to Talane for:
    1. reporting the following allegations as a fact:

i. There is a family bond between it and Maake;

ii. It was appointed to the panel of attorneys in November 2024; and

iii. The use of the word “connected” in the headline; and

b. causing unnecessary harm to its dignity and reputation as a result of the above.

  1. 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;
  • be published with the apology in the introductory sentence and with a headline including the words “apology” and “Talane”;
  • be published on every platform where the article is published, with a link to the original article;
  • refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
  • end with the sentence, “Visit 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

17 July 2026

[1] Presumably at the Central Supplier Database (CSD), which is an official government procurement database.

Related Posts