Tshifularo Mashava vs News24
BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA
In the matter between:
Tshifularo Mashava First Applicant
Charles Tlouane Second Applicant
Thamsanqa Mathiso Third Applicant
Anza Mudau Fourth Applicant
and
News24 Respondent
Matter No: 000625/05/2026
DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
- The following people apply for leave to appeal the Ruling of the Acting Press Ombud dated 8 July 2026: Tshifularo Mashava, Charles Tlouane, Thamsanqa Mathiso and Anza Mudau; they are respectively First to the Fourth Applicant and are collectively hereafter referred to as the applicants. They collectively lodged several complaints, in a composite document, against News24 (respondent) which spanned from 2025 to 13 May 2026. There is no need to go into those complaints as the issue is not about them, but solely whether they were submitted within the prescribed period. The latest publication complained about was on 8 March 2026. The composite complaint which included complaints about the 2025 publications published between 19 March and October 2025 and the one published on 8 March 2026, was only submitted on 14 May 2026.
- Clause 1.3 of the Complaints Procedures of the Press Council stipulates: “A complaint shall be made as soon as possible, but no later than 20 working days after the date of publication giving rise to the complaint.” A late filing of a complaint may be condoned on reasonable grounds provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay is given. It is obvious that all the complaints were lodged long after the publication of the articles concerned. For that reason, the Public Advocate refused to accept the compound complaint as no satisfactory explanation was given for the delay; the Acting Ombud dismissed them for the same reason. In other words, the condonation for the late filing of the complaints was refused. Hence this application.
- There are no reasonable prospects that the applicants’ late filing of the complaints will be condoned on appeal. The explanation for the delay in lodging the complaints is captured crisply by the Acting Ombud in his Ruling: “The issues raised affect several individuals all of whom had to provide instructions, verify facts, and review the content to ensure that the complaint accurately reflects their position. The coordination of these inputs, together with the need to ensure consistency and legal accuracy, materially contributed to the delay.” We are talking a delay of some several months and weeks. For all its verbosity, the application adds nothing more. As correctly indicated by the Public Advocate, accepting any complaint so grossly late would undermine the principle that complaints should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The longer the delay, the better should the explanation be; in the present case, there is simply none.
- The application is dismissed.
Dated this 3rd day of August 2026
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel
