Buti Manamela vs Sunday World

Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August

12 August 2026

Finding: Complaint 000674

Publication: Sunday World

Article 1:

Date of publication: 7 June 2026

Author: Mawande Amashabalala

Headline:

Buti Manamela drags Cyril Ramaphosa into NSFAS fiasco

https://sundayworld.co.za/news/buti-manamela-drags-cyril-ramaphosa-into-nsfas-fiasco/

Article 2:

Date of publication: 14 June 2026

Author: Mawande Amashabalala

Headline:

Manamela faces pushback over NSF CEO post fiasco

https://sundayworld.co.za/news/news/manamela-faces-pushback-over-nsf-ceo-post-fiasco/

Particulars

This finding is based on a written complaint on behalf of Higher Education Minister Buti Manamela by his spokesperson, Ms Matshepo Seedat; a written reply by the Editor of Sunday World, Mr Caiphus Kgosana; and a written response by Ms Seedat on behalf of Minister Manamela.

Complaint

The complainant submits that the articles are in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.8 and 10.1 of the Press Code.

1. Summary of articles

Article 1:

1.1. Higher Education Minister Buti Manamela reportedly “invoked” President Cyril Ramaphosa’s previous appointments of Professor Hlengani Mathebula to defend his decision to appoint Mathebula as the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) administrator.

1.1.1. Manamela made this submission in response to a high court application by former NSFAS board members to challenge his decision to dissolve the board and replace it with an administrator. The applicants want the court to declare his decision illegal and irrational.

1.1.2. They argue that Mathebula’s appointment was irrational because of the “adverse comments” made about him by the Nugent Commission of Inquiry into Tax Administration and Governance during Tom Moyane’s tenure as South African Revenue Service commissioner.

1.2. Manamela defended his decision to appoint Mathebula by arguing that the Nugent Commission’s report did not disqualify him from holding public office. In fact, he argues, Mathebula’s fitness to hold public office was confirmed by Ramaphosa’s appointment of him to the board of the Media Development and Diversity Agency and his subsequent appointment as chairperson of that board.

1.2.1. Manamela reportedly states in his responding papers filed in the North Gauteng High Court: “In making the impugned decision, I considered the adverse Nugent commission comments, which had been brought to my attention by Professor Mathebula before I made the … decision. He explained why, in his view, they did not affect his suitability for appointment.”

1.2.2. He added: “First, the Nugent commission made no recommendation that Professor Mathebula be disqualified from public office. It did not declare him unfit. It did not recommend his prosecution. He has not been criminally charged, prosecuted or convicted as a result of the matters before the commission.”

1.2.3. Manamela further argued that Ramaphosa would not have appointed Mathebula if the Nugent Commission’s findings were sufficient to disqualify him from public office. In light of this, he argues that the applicants’ challenge about Mathebula’s fitness to be the NSFAS administrator should be dismissed.

1.3. In his supporting affidavit, Mathebula agreed with Manamela’s argument and claimed that no-one had previously questioned his fitness to hold public office after the Nugent Commission’s report.

1.3.1. He reportedly wrote: “I have … been the subject of four-successive appointments to senior public office since the Nugent commission reported, on the recommendation of or by direct exercise of the appointment power by the President …, the National Assembly, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Higher Education and Training. Across all those appointments, nobody charged with assessing my fitness has concluded that the Nugent commission disqualifies me from public office.”

1.3.2. He continued: “The applicants invite this court to substitute a different view, based on selectively extracted narrative passages from a report seven years old and to do so without engaging with the contrary record. That invitation should, with respect, be declined.”

1.4. Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, was approached for comment but did not respond to questions.

Article 2:

1.5. According to the article, Manamela was “embroiled in yet another controversy”, this time over a decision to readvertise the position of CEO of the National Skills Fund (NSF) even though Innocent Sirovha was recommended after the recruitment process was completed.

1.5.1. The matter is before Parliament’s portfolio committee on higher education, chaired by Tebogo Letsie.

1.5.2. Sirovha was reportedly promised the NSF position at least three times during the past year and instructed his lawyers to write to Parliament, “citing suspicion of foul play and irrationality in the decision to readvertise the post”.

1.6. The dispute started in July 2025 after Manamela’s predecessor, Nobuhle Nkabane, sent a memorandum to Public Service and Administration Minister Mzamo Buthelezi and announced Sirovha as the successful candidate.

1.6.1. “It will be appreciated if you can obtain cabinet concurrence with the appointment of Dr Sirovha to the vacant post of executive officer: National Skills Fund …,” Nkabane reportedly wrote in the memo dated 18 July 2025.

1.7. Sirovha’s legal representatives, Modise Mabule Incorporated Attorneys, approached the portfolio committee and claimed that the reasons given for readvertising the post do not make sense and may well be illegal.

1.7.1. The acting deputy director-general of corporate services, Bayanda Mzoneli, reportedly called Sirovha on 26 February 2026 and confirmed his appointment as CEO of the NSF pending Cabinet’s concurrence.

1.7.2. According to Mzoneli, the delay was caused by outstanding information which the Department of Public Service and Administration requested from the Department of Higher Education and Training.

1.7.3. However, he informed Sirovha on 22 May 2026 that Manamela recommended that the Department must start the recruitment process afresh.

1.8. According to Sirovha, his selection for the NSF position was the result of a thorough, transparent and fair process. He argues that Manamela’s decision to start the process from scratch a year later without any valid reasons “raised red flags on integrity and rationality”.

1.8.1. He added that readvertising a position was usually justified only when no suitable candidates were identified.

1.9. According to the article, Manamela would be facing five high court applications – “all questioning his official decisions” – if Sirovha approached the courts as well.

1.9.1. Manamela’s spokesperson, Matshepo Seedat, initially provided Sunday World with a comment but later deleted it.

2. Arguments

Buti Manamela

2.1. Complaint one: The complainant objects to the use of the references to him as “Troubled … Minister” and “beleaguered Minister”. He contends that the use of these descriptors breach Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code.

2.1.1. He submits that they “are assessments of the perceived condition and standing of the individual office bearer” and are not capable of independent verification. He adds that, in terms of Clause 1.3, an evaluation must be clearly presented as such.

2.1.2. However, he says, the descriptors were not attributed to an identified source, not presented as quotations, not labelled as opinion or analysis and “incorporated into the publication’s own factual narrative”.

2.1.3. He argues that readers approach hard news reports expecting the publication to describe “ascertainable events”. In addition, he maintains, repetition and prominence increase the likelihood that the reasonable reader views the characterisations as “authoritative factual descriptions rather than editorial evaluation”.

2.2. Complaint two: The complainant submits that the headline of the first article, “Buti Manamela drags Cyril Ramaphosa into NSFAS fiasco”, breaches Clause 10.1 of the Press Code.

2.2.1. He argues that the article reports institutional developments and litigation, and does not report any facts that establish that he personally caused or dragged Ramaphosa into “institutional failure”.

2.2.2. He states that a headline that asserts a “personal agency” that the report does not establish is not a reasonable reflection of that report.

2.3. Complaint three: The complainant submits that he was not given a fair, meaningful and effective opportunity to respond to the second article before it was published.

2.3.1. He states that Sunday World contacted his spokesperson on the Saturday before publication and requested comment on the appointment of the NSF CEO.[1] The Department responded within the time frame available – at 3.36pm the next day – with the expectation that its response would be considered for inclusion in the article.

2.3.2. Five minutes later, the journalist advised the spokesperson that the response was received after the newspaper had already gone to print and could therefore no longer be accommodated. Based on this information, the Department withdrew its response.

2.3.3. However, the complainant says, the last paragraph of the published article simply states: “Manamela’s spokesperson, Matshepo Seedat, initially provided Sunday World with a comment on Saturday, but later deleted it.”

2.3.4. According to the complainant, this paragraph demonstrates that the publication was, in fact, still able to amend the article after it informed the Department that its comment could not be incorporated. He believes this raises serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of the process followed by the publication.

2.4. The complainant seeks a finding that the publication breached Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.8 and 10.1 of the Press Code and requests that the Press Ombud’s findings be published with prominence reasonably equivalent to the two articles in question.

2.4.1. In particular, he requests the publication of a correction and clarification recording that the descriptions “Troubled …. Minister” and “beleaguered Minister” were subjective characterisations and not objectively established facts, and that the matters reported were of an institutional nature.

2.4.2. Furthermore, he wants it to be noted that the withdrawal of his comment was based on information that he could no longer respond to the article. In light of this, he requests a meaningful right of reply.

2.4.3. Lastly, he wants the online versions of the articles to reflect the Press Ombud’s findings regarding any amendments.

Sunday World

2.5. Complaint one: The respondent states that a Minister who has had to deal with successive crises – as Manamela has at NSFAS, NSF and various Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) – is correctly characterised as “troubled” or “beleaguered” by the media.

2.6. Complaint two: The respondent disagrees with the complainant’s submission that the headline of the first article is misleading because it asserts personal agency on the part of the Minister even though that is not established in the article.

2.6.1. The publication maintains that the verb “drags” is appropriate to refer to the complainant’s action as it was he who decided to include the President in his response to the review application brought by former NSFAS board members to challenge the dissolution of the board and the placement of the scheme under administration.

2.6.2. The respondent says that, until the Minister mentioned Ramaphosa in his responding affidavit, there was no mention of the President in the notice of motion and the founding affidavit. He argues that it is therefore a fact that it is the complainant who dragged the President into the matter.

2.6.3. Accordingly, the publication maintains that it was within its rights to characterise his action in the way that it did in the headline.

2.7. Complaint three: The respondent takes issue with the claim that the complainant

was not granted a fair, meaningful and effective opportunity to respond to the second article before publication.

2.7.1. He asks why the Minister’s spokesperson responded to its request for comment and did not raise any objection on the grounds of insufficient time.

2.7.2. The respondent then confirms that the publication informed the spokesperson that the opportunity to comment had expired by the time the comment arrived, after which the spokesperson withdrew the comment.

2.7.3. He claims that attempts to get the spokesperson to resend the comment were in vain. He says this left the publication with no option but to refer to the deletion of the comment: “How else were we supposed to include a comment that was deleted at the Spokesperson’s own volition …?”

2.7.4. The respondent adds that the journalist informed the Minister’s spokesperson at 3.48pm that the page had been recalled in order to add the Minister’s comment.

2.7.5. At 4.01pm, the journalist informed the spokesperson that he had noted that the comment was deleted. However, the publication states, there was no response from the spokesperson. It was against this background that the article referred to the withdrawal of the Minister’s comment.

Buti Manamela

2.8. The complainant reiterates his claim that the respondent contravened the provisions of the Press Code regarding accuracy and fairness. He maintains that this resulted in “unjustifiable reputational prejudice” to him.

2.8.1. Complaint one: The complainant repeats his view that the characterisation of him as “beleaguered” and “troubled” is inaccurate.

2.8.2. He again submits that these descriptions are presented as statements of fact rather than as opinion. However, he argues, they are without any factual basis. He says he cannot accurately be described as “troubled” simply because there are challenges in the Post-School Education and Training (PSET) sector over which he has political oversight.

2.8.3. He maintains that it is both inaccurate and unfair to personalise systemic or institutional challenges and attribute them to his person. He says there is an important distinction between stating that institutions within the PSET sector are experiencing governance challenges and asserting that he is personally “troubled” or “beleaguered”.

2.8.4. He argues that the former statement is capable of objective verification, whereas the latter is a subjective characterisation that is not supported by evidence.

2.8.5. He says the publication therefore failed to distinguish between the operational challenges faced by institutions and his personal status or conduct. As a result, he states, the publication conveyed the false impression that he was in “personal distress”.

2.9. Complaint three: The complainant again takes issue with the newspaper’s claim that it did not have his response before it published the second article.

2.9.1. He says that, after a response was submitted, his spokesperson was informed that it was too late for inclusion because the newspaper had already gone to print. She then deleted the message and attended to her private affairs as it was a Saturday.

2.9.2. His spokesperson only became aware later of another message indicating that the response could, in fact, be incorporated. It read: “Let me see if it can’t be called back to add at least one sentence reflecting denial of the readvertising, which I think is the main issue.”

2.9.3. The complainant maintains that this message is significant. Firstly, he says, it shows that the publication was “in possession” of the gist of his response even though the message was deleted.

2.9.4. He says the publication’s message accurately summarised the central thrust of the deleted response, “namely [my] denial of the allegation concerning the re-advertisement”. He argues that the publication therefore cannot claim it did not receive a response or was unaware of his position on the grounds that his response had been deleted.

2.9.5. Secondly, the complainant submits that the publication’s own message demonstrates that it had sufficient knowledge of his version to include it fairly. Instead, he states, the publication chose not to publish his response.

3. Discussion

3.1. Complaint one: There is no merit in the complaint that describing the Minister as “troubled” and “beleaguered” is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 on the grounds that these descriptors are assessments of an individual office bearer’s condition and cannot be verified independently (point 2.1.1).[2]

3.1.1. The respondent rightly points out that the complainant has had to deal with successive crises at NSFAS, NSF and various SETAs in his capacity as Minister of Higher Education, and can therefore fairly be described in this way (point 2.5).

3.1.2. There is ample evidence in the public domain to support this claim. Several articles have been published by a number of media outlets about various issues faced by the complainant in his capacity as Higher Education Minister before Sunday World published its two articles.

3.1.3. Some examples are “Unions slam minister over decision to put NSFAS under administration” (5 May 2026), “Manamela faces backlash from MPs over crisis at NSFAS” (26 May 2026), “MPs grill Manamela on clumsy appointments, NSFAS board claims political interference” (29 May 2026) and “NSFAS saga: Buti Manamela denies interference in scheme CEO hunt” (29 May 2026).[3]

3.1.4. Against the background of such articles, there were sufficient grounds for the respondent to refer to the Minister as “beleaguered” or “troubled”. For this reason, the articles are not in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.1.5. The other aspect of the complainant’s objection to the use of the descriptors in question is that the articles were not labelled or presented as opinion or analysis (points 2.1.2 and 2.8.2).

3.1.6. However, although Clause 1.3 of the Press Code requires opinions to be clearly distinguished from facts, this obligation cannot apply equally and inflexibly to all fields of journalism.

3.1.7. Political reporting has increasingly become characterised by interpretive writing. Like sports reporting, for example, political reporting tends to allow journalists far more latitude to incorporate interpretation and comment.

3.1.8. As I stated in DA and John Steenhuisen vs EWN: “Seeking to eliminate interpretation from political reporting would be to attempt to hold journalists and publications technically accountable to the letter – but not necessarily to the spirit – of the Press Code.”[4]

3.1.9. The more pertinent issue is whether there was any factual basis for the use of the descriptors in question. As illustrated under points 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, there are indeed sufficient grounds to substantiate the use of those words.

3.1.10. For the above reasons, the publication is not in breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code.

3.2. Complaint two: There is no substance in the complaint that the headline of the first article is misleading and that it is not substantiated by the content of the article.

3.2.1. The headline is quite obviously based on the following references in the Minister’s responding papers to a high court application by former NSFAS board members: “… the National Assembly… recommended that … Mathebula be appointed to the board of the Media Development and Diversity Agency. The president acceded to that recommendation and appointed him.”

3.2.2. The article further quotes from his responding papers: “Thereafter, in June 2021, the president, exercising his direct appointment authority …, appointed Professor Mathebula as chairperson of the Media Development and Diversity Agency for a period of five years.

“Professor Mathebula has thus been the subject of two successive presidential appointments to senior public office by the president.”

3.2.3. With regard to the Nugent Commission’s findings, the article reports the following statement in the Minister’s responding papers: “Had the commission made findings sufficient to disqualify Professor Mathebula from senior public office, the president would not have appointed him, not once but twice, in the period that followed.”

3.2.4. Based on these references in the article to the President’s previous decisions regarding Mathebula, it is therefore reasonable to write a headline which suggests that the complainant included Ramaphosa in his justification of Mathebula’s appointment as NSFAS administrator.

3.2.5. In this context, the word “drags” merely means that the complainant included the President in the legal matter regarding NSFAS. A reasonable reader would understand the use of the word as such.

3.2.6. Furthermore, there is also no merit in the argument that the complainant did not personally drag the President into the matter. The fact of the matter is that the high court challenge by NSFAS members relates to the complainant’s appointment of Mathebula in his capacity as Minister of Higher Education and to the references in his responding papers to Ramaphosa’s previous appointments of Mathebula.

3.2.7. This is the nub of the matter, regardless of the formalities or rules of litigation.

3.2.8. Based on the above, there is no substance in the claim that the headline is misleading.

3.3. Complaint three: There is some merit in the claim that the complainant was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the second article before publication.

3.3.1. This aspect of the complaint revolves around a statement submitted by the Minister’s spokesperson to Sunday World which she withdrew after she was informed that the publication had already gone to print. In fact, the spokesperson deleted the statement after she was told it was too late for inclusion.

3.3.2. It is not entirely clear why the spokesperson deleted the statement even if it was too late for publication. This is surely not standard practice even in the circumstances she describes.

3.3.3. Nevertheless, whatever the rationale behind the deletion of the statement, the response of the publication is open to question as well.

3.3.4. It certainly deserves credit for recalling the page in order to add the Minister’s comment and duly messaged the spokesperson to inform her. It contacted her again a few minutes later when it saw that the comment had been deleted, but did not get any response.

3.3.5. The problem, though, arises in the respondent’s next course of action. The publication added a sentence to the article that the Minister’s spokesperson “initially provided Sunday World with a comment on Saturday, but later deleted it” (see point 2.3.3).

3.3.6. The complainant understandably takes issue with this and argues that, even though the Minister’s comment was deleted, the publication could still have included the gist of his response, of which it was well aware. After all, in its message to the Minister’s spokesperson, the publication refers to the complainant’s “denial of the readvertising, which I think is the main issue” (see point 2.9.4).

3.3.7. Alternatively, having made the effort to recall the page, the publication could at the very least have reported that the Minister’s comment was received too late for inclusion. Instead, the last sentence creates the impression that, after he provided a response, he inexplicably changed his mind and withdrew his comment.

3.3.8. This sentence does not provide any context or background information. It is therefore misleading and unfair. As such, the second article is in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.

4. Findings

Complaint one: The complaint that the articles are in breach of Clause 1.2 are dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.1 to 3.1.4 of my Discussion.

The complaint that the articles are in breach of Clause 1.3 are dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.1.5 to 3.1.10 of my Discussion.

Complaint two: The complaint that the headline of the first article is in breach of Clause 10.1 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.2 to 3.2.8 of my Discussion.

Complaint three: The complaint that the second article is in breach of Clause 1.8 is upheld for the reasons set out in points 3.3.5 to 3.3.8 of my Discussion.

Firstly, Sunday World is required to publish an apology in print and online to Minister Manamela for breaching Clause 1.8 by not fairly reporting on his response in the second article.

Secondly, Sunday World should give the complainant the right to reply on the readvertisement of the NSF CEO post. If there is a dispute between the parties about the content and length of the reply, this should be referred to me for settlement.

Thirdly, the apology and the right of reply should be approved by me prior to publication.

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

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

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”; and
• be published with the logo of the Press Council.

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

12 August 2026

[1] The reference to Saturday is presumably a typing error. According to the complainant’s own timeline, his office was approached for comment at 7.45pm on Friday, 12 June 2026.

[2] For the reasons discussed in points 3.1.1 to 3.1.10, this complaint is assessed more appropriately in relation to Clauses 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code.

[3] See https://www.sabcnews.com/sabcnews/unions-slam-minister-over-decision-to-put-nsfas-under-administration/; https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/2026-05-26-manamela-faces-backlash-from-mps-over-crisis-at-nsfas/; https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-05-29-mps-grill-manamela-on-clumsy-appointments-nsfas-board-claims-political-interference/; and https://www.news24.com/politics/nsfas-saga-buti-manamela-denies-interference-in-scheme-ceo-hunt-20260529-0929

[4] https://presscouncilsa.org.za/2021/12/03/request-for-adjudication-da-and-john-steenhuisen-vs-ewn/