Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Rafik Mohamed and others v Sunday Times/TimesLIVE

, ,

Ruling: Acting Deputy Press Ombud

Complaint number: PCSA 000744

Author: Sabelo Skiti

Headline: Billion-rand steel deal write-off

Subheading: IDC admits SASM loan recovery is unlikely as questions resurface over due diligence, oversight and alleged misconduct

Publication Date: 2 August 2026

Date lodged: 3 August 2026

Link to story: https://www.sundaytimes.timeslive.co.za/news/2026-08-01-billion-rand-steel-deal-write-off/

Particulars

  1. This complaint was submitted by Safraaz Laher, from the law firm Shaheed Dollie Inc, on behalf of Rafik Mohamed, Coin Wise Trading 42 (Pty) Ltd, Pro Roof Industrial Park (Pty) Ltd, Pro RM Group (Pty) Ltd, and related entities (henceforth, “Mohamed”).
  2. Robin Wheatley responded on behalf of Arena Holdings (henceforth, “Arena” or “Wheatley”).

The article

  1. The first four sentences of the report aptly describe what the article is about. They read:

a. “The Industrial Development Corporation’s (IDC) board of directors this week resolved to write off more than R1bn in loan funding granted to local steel manufacturer South African Steel Mills (SASM).

b. “The write-off is a significant step, as it amounts to an acknowledgement by the state-owned development finance lender that the funds are unlikely to be recovered in the foreseeable future.

c. “It comes as the company remains trapped in business rescue, with more than 1,100 metalworkers’ jobs that were reportedly lost.

d. “The decision also brings into sharp focus previously reported allegations that the transaction was flawed from the start, including claims that proper due diligence was not done at deal inception and that loan drawdowns were made before certain conditions precedent had been met.”

4. Regarding Mohamed, the story inter alia says that he:

a. headed SASM (at the time of the transactions);

b. personally signed the historical agreements with the IDC on behalf of SASM in his capacity as a director;

c. was arrested by the Hawks, after Alfeco Holdings bought a portion of SAMS shares and allegedly found some criminal activities in SASM;

d. was charged with fraud, theft and contraventions of the Companies Act;

e. was granted bail of R100 000 and was due to appear again in the Palm Ridge Specialised Commercial Crimes Court; and

f. was recently in the news after his private VIP convoy had been involved in a road-rage incident that ended with his protectors allegedly shooting a doctor in the leg.

THE COMPLAINT

In general

  1. Mohamed’s complaint is that the article presents a materially incomplete and misleading narrative, that it:

a. introduces serious allegations which were never properly put to him;

b. misstates the transaction and the outcome of the arbitration;

c. publishes an unsupported and misleading subheading;

d. omits the live business rescue and recovery measures placed before the publication; and

e. joins an unrelated road incident to the IDC/SASM dispute in a manner which causes unnecessary reputational harm to him.

6. Mohamed says that Sunday Times was placed in possession of the correct facts and documents before publication.

7. He adds that, at 16:47 on 30 July 2026, Skiti sent a wide-ranging media enquiry to Dollie, requiring a response by close of business that day. Despite Dollie having objected to such a short deadline, a detailed response was provided the next day.

8. Mohamed says he objected to the deadline – he requested inter alia that publication be delayed, offered further engagement, sought clarification and evidence for the allegations, explained the relevant criminal, arbitration, appeal and business-rescue proceedings, disclosed the pending application to remove the Business Rescue Practitioner (BRP), and provided information concerning competing restructuring proposals, the IDC funding, and Mohamed’s complaint regarding this matter.

9. He adds that the publications did not provide the requested particulars, identify additional allegations it intended to publish, or engage further before publishing the article.

10. Mohamed emphasises that his complaint is not that the publication was obliged to reproduce his entire letter. “The complaint is that it selected portions which suited its chosen narrative, omitted material correcting information, introduced serious allegations which had never been put and gave Alfeco the final word on issues which had been materially affected by the arbitration and appeal.”

11. These matters will be addressed in more detail below.

First complaint: Subheading falsely recording an IDC admission

  1. Mohamed complains that the statement in the subheading that “IDC admits SASM loan recovery is unlikely” is misleading as it is contradicted by the body of the article.
  2. He says the article expressly records that the IDC did not directly confirm the alleged write-off. It further records that the IDC was in a closed period and that “it was limited in commenting on ‘financial performance or the accounting treatment of historical debt’.”
  3. The only direct statement attributed to the IDC is that any impairment or write-off would be undertaken in accordance with applicable accounting standards and financial-reporting obligations. “That is not an admission that a write-off had been approved, that the debt was unrecoverable; that the IDC had abandoned recovery; or that recovery was unlikely,” he submits.
  4. Moreover, Skiti reports that the information that the alleged Board decision was confirmed by two internal sources, neither of whom was authorised to speak on behalf of the IDC. “It was accordingly misleading to convert an anonymously sourced assertion into an ‘admission’ by the IDC,” Mohamed concludes.

Second complaint: Published allegations never put to Mohamed

  1. Mohamed complains that, despite “back and forth” communications between him and Alfeco, the reporter did not put the allegation to him that:

a. fictitious journal entries had been discovered;

b. more than R200 million had allegedly been stolen through various transactions and loans;

c. R121 million had allegedly been externalised through Emberton;

d. correct audited financial statements could not be produced because of embezzlement of public funds; and

e. he had been involved in the misuse of public funds.

17. He says he requested that each allegation intended for publication, the person to whom it would be attributed, and the supporting material be identified. That request was ignored – the publication nevertheless placed these allegations at the centre of the article.

18. Mohamed adds that the prejudice “is compounded by the fact that the enquiry was sent at 16h47 with a deadline of close of business on the same day”.

19. He concludes that the allegations are serious and damaging his dignity and reputation.

Third complaint: Misstating a transaction

  1. Mohamed complains that the statement that “SASM sold a portion of its shares to Alfeco Holdings” is factually incorrect.
  2. He says that, according to the Sale of Shares and Claims Agreement:

a. Coin Wise was the seller;

b.  Alfeco was the purchaser; and

c. the shares were in PRIP, not in SASM.

22. He says PRIP owned the property on which SASM operated and was itself a shareholder in SASM. Therefore, the transaction concerned a change in the ownership of PRIP, rather than a direct sale of shares by SASM.

23. Mohamed submits that this distinction is substantive because it affects the understanding of:

a. the ownership structure;

b. the operation of the suspensive conditions;

c. what the arbitration ultimately ordered;

d. which shares were restored; and

e. the respective legal positions of SASM, PRIP, Coin Wise and Alfeco.

24. In other words, the complaint is that the article misidentifies both the seller and the shares involved. It portrays the transaction as a direct sale of SASM shares by SASM, whereas the agreement concerned the proposed sale of PRIP shares by Coin Wise to Alfeco. He says that this misdescription affects the reader’s understanding of the entire ownership and arbitration dispute.

Fourth complaint: Arbitration appeal materially misstated, diminished

  1. Mohamed complains that the following statement is false: “Despite a recent arbitration award restoring shares to Mohamed…” He submits that the shares were not restored to him personally – they were restored to Coin Wise.
  2. He says that, more importantly, the article materially distorts the transaction by omitting the key outcomes of the arbitration and appeal. These include the agreement being declared invalid, the restoration of the status quo, the return of the PRIP shares to Coin Wise, the dismissal of Alfeco and PRIP’s counterclaim, the dismissal of their appeal with costs, and the subsequent implementation of the awards.
  3. Mohamed says he accepts that the arbitration did not determine whether a criminal offence occurred. However, he argues that its findings were essential to accurately explain the transaction, ownership dispute, Alfeco’s allegations and the status of its counterclaim. Instead, the article reduced the arbitration outcome to an inaccurate phrase and prominently published Alfeco’s allegation of embezzlement without including the complainants’ denial or the material arbitration and appeal findings.
  4. He contends that these omissions deprive readers of essential context and that they materially distort the account.

Fifth complaint: Inaccurate reporting concerning the IDC criminal complaint

  1. Mohamed complains that the article falsely says that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) closed multiple criminal complaints submitted to the IDC and refused to prosecute them, while his letter clarified that the NPA withdrew only one specific complaint (the reasons for this withdrawal remain unknown).
  2. He adds that Sunday Times “was expressly cautioned not to report that the complaint was ‘abandoned by the IDC’ or to speculate about the NPA’s reasons without confirmation. The article nevertheless elevated the withdrawal into a ‘refusal to prosecute’ and [it] referred to multiple complaints.”
  3. He argues that this misrepresentation was significant “because the article used the alleged refusal, together with the write-off, to fuel a wider suggestion that deficiencies or misconduct were being papered over”.

Sixth complaint: Falsely implying established misuse

  1. The article states that Mohamed was charged in relation to his alleged role “… in the misuse of what are essentially public funds.”
  2. He denies that this is true and complains that the report unfairly presents the misuse and embezzlement of public funds as established facts, even though no court has made such a finding.
  3. “The article (also) does not fairly record that the allegations of theft, externalisation, fictitious entries and embezzlement are denied. More importantly, those very same allegations made by Alfeco in the arbitration which formed the subject matter of Alfeco’s counterclaim was (sic) dismissed,” Mohamed submits.
  4. Simply stating that charges were dismissed does not accurately reflect the clients’ direct denial of the allegations, leaving the false impression that only his involvement is what remains unproven, he concludes.

Seventh complaint: The unrelated road incident

  1. The final paragraph states that Mohamed had recently been in the news after his “private VIP convoy” had been involved in a road-rage incident.
  2. He complains that this introduces an unrelated road-rage incident involving his security detail, allegedly resulting in a doctor being shot. He argues that the incident has no meaningful connection to the article’s subject matter, including the alleged IDC write-off, its accounting treatment, the SASM transaction, business rescue proceedings, arbitration, or criminal charges.
  3. Mohamed says that Sunday Times had previously been informed that the individuals involved in that incident were not his employees, that security services were provided by an independent third party, and that he neither owned nor controlled the provider or accepted responsibility for its personnel. Despite this, the article described the vehicles as his “private VIP convoy” and the individuals as “his protectors”, without qualification or explaining the incident’s relevance.
  4. “Its inclusion is gratuitous, prejudicial and designed to leave the reader with an additional adverse impression unrelated to the subject of the report,” he concludes.

Eighth complaint: Anonymous sources, verification

  1. Mohamed says the principal allegation that the IDC Board resolved to write off more than R1 billion is based on two unidentified internal sources, while the IDC did not directly confirm the decision. One source was expressly described as not authorised to speak on behalf of the IDC.
  2. While he does not contend that confidential sources may never be used, his complaint is that the article:

a. presents the alleged decision by the IDC as an established fact in the opening paragraph;

b. converts it into an IDC “admission” in the subheading;

c. does not disclose whether it had seen a Board resolution, a committee minute, an auditor’s recommendation or a financial record;

d. does not distinguish clearly between an accounting impairment, a write-off, and abandonment of recovery proceedings; and

e. does not explain how the information garnered from the unnamed sources was sufficiently corroborated to justify the unequivocal headline and opening sentence.

42. Mohamed adds that he is not asking for the disclosure of the confidential identities – he merely requests that the publications demonstrate that the information was sufficiently corroborated before it was presented as an IDC admission and a Board resolution.

Ninth complaint: Selective use of Mohamed’s response

  1. Mohamed complains that the article does not fairly reflect his response as it omits critical factual context, while giving the opposing party the final word. Although some quotes are reported, key information regarding legal outcomes, ownership structures and counter-proposals are omitted – which ultimately alter the article’s overall thrust and impact.
  2. He specifies that the publications select the portions of his letter dealing with the circumstances of the arrest, but inter alia omit to report:

a. the actual operative arbitration order, the appeal outcome, and the dismissal of the counterclaim;

b. the correct ownership and transaction structure, as well as a trade-out and restructuring proposal aimed at restarting operations and saving jobs;

c. details on the pending BRP removal application (and the IDC’s non-opposition), allegations of asset damage while Alfeco retained possession, and the BRP’s failure to protect assets or act independently; and

d. his denial of the published financial allegations and his request for specific details regarding the accusations by Alfeco.

45. Finally, he says the article gives Alfeco the final substantive word “by quoting an assertion that embezzlement had been discovered”.

Tenth complaint: Material omission of live business rescue, recovery context

  1. The article states that SASM remains “trapped in business rescue”, that more than 1,100 jobs have reportedly been lost and that the IDC’s exposure is unlikely to be recovered.
  2. Mohamed complains that those statements create the false impression that the business rescue process had simply failed, that the deterioration of SASM was inevitable and that no credible alternative remained available – while Sunday Times was inter alia expressly informed of the pending application for the removal of the BRP.
  3. He adds that the article omits to report both the removal application and the competing proposal, and that it instead presents a largely one-directional account centred on the original funding and his alleged misconduct. He says that, while the newspaper was not required to publish the full documents or commercial terms, it should at least have reported the existence of the pending removal application, the disputed condition of SASM’s assets, the IDC’s decision not to oppose the application, and the alternative operational proposal.

In conclusion

  1. Mohamed says the allegations of theft, embezzlement, fictitious accounting records, externalisation of funds and misuse of public funds seriously damage his reputation and potentially prejudice the related companies in their dealings with employees, creditors, regulators, funders and other affected persons.
  2. Moreover, the article creates commercial prejudice by portraying SASM’s future and the IDC’s recovery prospects as largely hopeless, while omitting the pending removal application and competing proposal, which could affect stakeholders’ attitudes towards the business rescue.
  3. Despite having received a detailed response and information on the correct transaction structure and arbitration and appeal outcomes, the Sunday Times published the allegations without properly putting them to the affected parties or including key corrective facts.

Alleged breaches of the Press Code; relief sought

  1. The complaint is brought under Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8, 3.3, 10.1 and 11.2 of the Press Code.
  2. Mohamed seeks a direction that the publications publish a correction and apology with appropriate prominence on every platform on which the article was published or promoted.
  3. In addition, or alternatively, he requests an order directing the publications to publish a right of reply of reasonable length, to be approved by the Press Ombud.

REPLY TO THE COMPLAINT

In general

  1. Arena says that the article:

a. concerns the potential impairment of more than R1 billion in public development-finance funding. Public interest was heightened by SASM’s business rescue, more than 1 100 reported job losses, government funding, questions about financing conditions and equity, and pending criminal and commercial proceedings;

b. is about the IDC that made an accounting decision about its exposure, with recovery appearing doubtful in the foreseeable future (while recovery efforts could continue). The decision also raised questions about how the funding had been approved and monitored. The various allegations and legal disputes remained contested;

c. does not portray Mohamed as guilty of theft or embezzlement – it reports allegations, his arrest and charges, his lawyers’ response, the arbitration developments and Alfeco’s allegations, while making clear that the criminal matter remained pending and that the accusations were disputed; and

d. is brief and focused on the IDC’s accounting decision and the background necessary to explain it. It was not intended to provide a complete corporate history, examine the application to remove the BRP, compare business-rescue proposals, or determine the merits of the criminal allegations or arbitration.

First complaint: Subheading, alleged IDC ‘admission’

  1. The statement in question reads, “IDC admits SASM loan recovery is unlikely as questions resurface over the due diligence, oversight and alleged misconduct.”
  2. Arena argues that the word “admits” in the subheading was a characterisation of the reported IDC Board decision to write off its exposure, rather than a claim that an IDC spokesperson had used those exact words.
  3. Wheatley maintains that:

a. a write-off or impairment ordinarily indicates that full recovery is not expected in the foreseeable future, but it does not mean that recovery efforts have been abandoned. “The first two paragraphs explained that meaning expressly”;

b. the article clearly distinguishes between an accounting write-off, legal abandonment of the debt, and ultimate non-recovery. He argues, “’Unlikely to be recovered in the foreseeable future’ is materially different from ‘unrecoverable forever’ or ‘abandoned’.” However, it indeed is unlikely that a R1b debt is to be recovered in a business rescue process;

c.the report was based on two internal IDC sources, while the IDC itself did not directly confirm the Board decision before publication. Instead, its spokesperson explained the relevant accounting process;

d. the article did not conceal its evidential basis or falsely attribute the statement to an official IDC spokesperson;

e. the subheading fairly reflects the article’s overall content concerning the reported write-off, likely near-term recovery prospects, and scrutiny of due diligence, oversight and alleged misconduct;

f. if the Ombud considers “admits” is too categorical, Arena is willing to clarify that the IDC did not directly confirm the Board decision and that the report relied on two internal sources; and

g. this would be a clarification of attribution, rather than grounds for the extensive apology sought, particularly since the IDC has not itself challenged or corrected the reported statement. It reiterates that the article clearly and, on several occasions, indicates that the confirmation was obtained from insiders within the IDC and not from an official statement by the IDC. “To date hereof, the IDC has not challenged, disputed or corrected the statement made in media publication (which is often the case).”

Second complaint: Allegations not put

  1. Wheatley says the publications’ enquiry was sufficiently specific and gave Mohamed a meaningful opportunity to respond – it identified the relevant parties, funding and alleged write-off, criminal complaint, financial-misconduct allegations, dispute between Mohamed and Sachin Ahuja, arbitration, pending litigation, Mohamed’s public role and the Black Industrialists Scheme.
  2. Moreover, Mohamed’s response demonstrates that he understood the allegations. “Put differently, the readers are not left to second-guess the complainant’s position,” he submits.
  3. Arena rejects the suggestion that it was required to provide a “chapter and verse” preview of the final article or disclose every sentence, figure or item of evidence in advance. Clause 1.8 of the Press Code requires a meaningful opportunity to respond to the substance of the criticism, not a disclosure of the entire article – particularly in investigative journalism, where doing so could expose sources.
  4. It admits that the initial same-day deadline was short. However, Mohamed nevertheless provided a comprehensive response the following day. “Put differently, the response contained all matters the complainants considered relevant…”
  5. Wheatley concludes that:

a. Mohamed knew the issues were being investigated, he had an opportunity to respond, and he did respond substantively – which is reflected in the article;

b. the underlying disputes were already matters of public and media attention; and

c. the successful delivery of a detailed response, followed by its inclusion, is inconsistent with a claim that no meaningful opportunity existed.

Third complaint: Description of the share transaction

  1. Arena says it accepts that the sentence “SASM sold a portion of its shares to Alfeco Holdings” is imprecise as Coin Wise was the seller, Alfeco the purchaser, and the issued shares and claims in PRIP were the subject of the proposed sale. SASM did not itself sell part of its issued shares.
  2. However, Wheatley argues that the imprecision does not affect the article’s central subject or materially change the nature or seriousness of the allegations. The error does not demonstrate intentional or negligent distortion – the underlying agreements were confidential, complex and potentially obscure, rendering the wording in dispute reasonable.
  3. He concludes that, if the Ombud finds that it was not reasonable for the publications to publish in the manner they did, Arena proposes to clarify the matter as follows: “The proposed transaction concerned Coin Wise’s sale to Alfeco of shares and claims in PRIP, which owned the property on which SASM operated and was SASM’s shareholder. SASM did not itself sell a portion of its shares.”

Fourth complaint: Arbitration, appeal

  1. Wheatley says the article accurately conveys the central development: an arbitration award restored the PRIP shares to “Mr Mohamed”, although technically they were restored to Coin Wise, which is a related entity. “In journalism it is common to identify a corporate holding by reference to the controlling or associated individual,” he argues.
  2. Arena accepts that naming Coin Wise would have been more precise but argues that requiring a journalist to reproduce every technical detail of a complex commercial transaction would be excessive.
  3. The publications maintain that the article does not need to include every aspect of the arbitration order, including addenda, status quo ante relief, costs, counterclaims and the tribunal’s composition. The key point was that the ownership dispute resulted in an award restoring the shares, while Alfeco maintained that the separate criminal matter remained unaffected.
  4. Since the arbitration did not determine whether a criminal offence had occurred, Arena argues that the dismissal of a commercial counterclaim did not invalidate the criminal allegations.
  5. “Publishing Alfeco’s position that the criminal case was separate was fair and directly responsive to the complainants’ reliance on the arbitration.”

Fifth complaint: IDC criminal complaint, NPA

  1. Arena argues that Mohamed himself confirmed prior to publication that the criminal matter had been closed at the NPA’s instance, while warning only against saying the IDC had voluntarily “abandoned” the complaint.
  2. However, “The article did not say that the IDC (voluntarily) abandoned it, it referred to closure and refusal by the NPA and later said the NPA had withdrawn previous complaints. The NPA could neither withdraw the IDC’s complaint nor close the police docket, it could only decline to prosecute. The NPA could not withdraw a matter that had not been enrolled. ‘Refusal to prosecute’ was therefore an accurate, concise description. Arena cannot be expected to repeat a legally incorrect characterisation,” Wheatley concludes.

Sixth complaint: Alleged misuse, embezzlement

  1. The sentence in dispute states that Mohamed was charged with fraud, theft and Companies Act contraventions “relating to his alleged role in the misuse of what are essentially public funds”.
  2. Arena argues that the article clearly presents the allegations as disputed rather than as established facts. The phrase “alleged role”, together with references to “alleged theft” and “alleged externalising” qualifies the accusations. “The criminal-process context itself signals that guilt has not been determined.”
  3. Furthermore, the criminal-process context (pending charges, Mohamed being on bail, and a further court appearance) would signal to readers that he was not (yet) found guilty.
  4. Moreover, Alfeco’s phrase “On discovery of embezzlement” was a clearly attributed quotation from its spokesperson, introduced after stating that “Alfeco maintains”. Readers would understand it as Alfeco’s contentious position, not Arena’s finding. The article also referred immediately beforehand to the “alleged embezzlement”.
  5. Mohamed’s denials are also included through his attorney’s statements about the charges, cooperation, the withdrawn IDC complaint and the arrest, Wheatley adds.
  6. He maintains that Clause 1.3 of the Press Code does not require the word “alleged” to be repeated throughout an article where attribution and context make the disputed nature of the allegations clear.
  7. Finally, the dismissal of Alfeco and PRIP’s commercial counterclaim was not equivalent to a criminal acquittal.

Seventh complaint: Road incident

  1. Arena argues that relevance in a news report is an editorial judgment. “A brief reference identifying why a subject had recently been prominent is not unethical merely because it concerns a different incident, especially where the sentence is factually sourced, accurately qualified and proportionate.”
  2. Wheatley recognises that Mohamed’s security services may have been provided through a third-party contracted security provider. However, “Whether the individuals were employees is not decisive of the ordinary descriptive expressions ‘private VIP convoy’ or ‘his protectors’. Those phrases can describe function or association, not legal employment or ownership.”
  3. He adds that the sentence occupied one paragraph and was not used to prove financial misconduct. “It therefore did not create the sweeping ‘broader adverse narrative’ alleged. Public interest in the IDC/SASM story independently justified the article; the road reference was incidental.”

Eighth complaint: Anonymous sources, verification

  1. Arena says the report about the decision of the Board was substantiated by two internal sources. The article described one as an “IDC insider” and another as an individual with direct knowledge of the deal. “It did not rely on a single untested rumour.”
  2. Wheatley argues that:

a. internal sources need not be authorised institutional spokespersons;

b. confidential sources may be necessary and are protected under Clauses 11.1 and 11.2 of the Press Code, provided their information is appropriately corroborated;

c. the reporter sought on-record comment from the IDC, whose closed-period restrictions prevented direct confirmation. Its response on impairment and write-offs, including its lack of direct confirmation of the write-off, is prominently published;

d. the article clearly distinguishes the accounting write-off from abandoning recovery efforts, noting that recovery would continue despite the write-off; and

e. Arena was not required to publish a Board minute or possess a Board resolution. “The question is whether the sources were independently placed, had direct knowledge, were tested against one another and other information, and gave Arena reasonable grounds to publish the statement in the manner that it did,” Wheatley argues.

Ninth complaint: Selective use of response

  1. Arena says that the selection of information is inherent in journalism.
  2. Wheatley argues that the article includes several significant facts favourable to Mohamed, including the dismissal and withdrawal of charges, his cooperation with investigators, his complaint about his arrest and detention, and the arbitration award restoring shares.
  3. “The omitted matters were either collateral to the article’s central focus, disputed allegations not judicially determined, technical corporate detail, or advocacy for the complainants’ preferred business-rescue outcome. Omitting them did not transform the IDC Board decision or the existence of criminal charges into a different story,” he submits.
  4. He says that, giving Alfeco a short, attributed response after reporting the arbitration was fair because Mohamed invoked the arbitration as an answer to Alfeco’s allegations. The article does not give Alfeco an unqualified “final word”, it places the dispute before readers, who can see that the parties disagreed.
  5. In short, Arena denies that the article omits material facts. “The relevant counterfactual is whether including the BRP application, rescue proposal and full arbitral order would have changed the truth or meaning of the IDC write-off. It would not. It would have expanded the article into several other stories,” Wheatley concludes.

Tenth complaint: Business rescue, recovery context

  1. Arena says the statement that SASM remained in business rescue is accurate and that more than 1,100 metalworkers’ jobs were reportedly lost – and Mohamed does not produce evidence to the contrary.
  2. Wheatley argues that the pending BRP-removal application did not establish that business rescue was improper, restore jobs, explain the asset deterioration, or demonstrate that the complainants’ proposal would succeed. Mohamed even acknowledged that the allegations remained undetermined.
  3. He adds that non-opposition does not amount to support for the application, and the absence of an answering affidavit does not establish its merits.
  4. The article also makes clear that the write-off did not necessarily end recovery efforts; Arena says it was not required to detail every recovery mechanism or ongoing dispute.
  5. Finally, Arena rejects the claim that the article attributes the deterioration solely or principally to Mohamed, noting that it refers more broadly to questions about due diligence, oversight, alleged misconduct, and possible failures by IDC’s post-investment team.

Relief sought

  1. Arena argues that Mohamed’s requested relief is disproportionate, as it seeks widespread corrections and an apology containing a prescribed 16-point narrative that largely reflects the disputed version of events.
  2. Wheatley maintains that no apology is warranted, given its position that the article was in the public interest, responsibly sourced, substantially accurate, attributed and balanced by Mohamed’s response.
  3. However, without admitting a Press Code breach, Arena offers a narrower clarification correcting the description of the share transaction, stating that SASM itself did not sell shares, confirming that the arbitration restored the PRIP shares to Coin Wise, and explaining the basis for the IDC write-off reference. It may also clarify the status of the separate IDC complaint if verification shows that the plural reference requires correction.
  4. Wheatley inter alia stresses that no clarification should amount to an apology.

REJOINDER

  1. In his response to Arena’s defence, Mohamed merely reiterates his complaint in full.
  2. He says he notes the proposed corrections concerning the transaction and the restoration of the PRIP shares to Coin Wise. Those corrections are warranted, he says, but they do not resolve the complaint concerning the treatment of the arbitration and appeal outcomes or the context in which Alfeco’s allegations were presented.
  3. “The limited clarifications proposed by Sunday Times are therefore not accepted as adequate resolution of the complaint.”

ANALYSIS

First complaint: Subheading falsely recording an IDC ‘admission’

  1. Clause 10.1 of the Press Code reads, “Headlines … shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report … in question.”
  2. The question, therefore, is whether the statement in the subheading that the “IDC admits SASM loan recovery is unlikely” is sufficiently supported by the article.
  3. Central to this issue is the use of the word “admits” regarding the IDC.
  4. The reportage clearly is not based on a Board decision, but on the testimonies of two internal sources.
  5. If the article presented this matter as an allegation or ascribed it to a source or sources, it would have been perfectly in order. The problem is not the information garnered from the two sources – it lies with the presentation of an allegation as an established fact.
  6. I shall deal with the issue of the use of anonymous sources below.

Second complaint: Published allegations never put to Mohamed

  1. The questions are whether the publication’s enquiry:

a. gave Mohamed ample time to respond; and

b. was sufficiently specific.

Ample time to respond

  1. These are the facts:

a. Skiti sent his enquiries to Mohamed’s attorney, Shaheed Dollie, on Thursday, 30 July 2026, at 16:47;

b. The reporter asked for a reply “by close of business to accommodate deadline pressures”; and

c. Dollie called this deadline “farcical” but nevertheless responds the next day.

111. The question is whether the 13 minutes to “close of business” were fair and sufficient. That would, of course, depend on the quality and quantity of the questions.

112. In this case, the matter was complicated and surely Dollie had to have more than 13 minutes to respond. I find this request by the reporter quite incredible.

Sufficiently specific

  1. The correspondence by the reporter to Mohamed that was presented to the Press Ombud indeed does not specifically include:

a. fictitious journal entries that had been discovered;

b. that more than R200 million had allegedly been stolen through various transactions and loans;

c. that R121 million had allegedly been externalised through Emberton;

d. that correct audited financial statements could not be produced because of embezzlement of public funds; and

e. Mohamed’s alleged involvement in the misuse of public funds.

114. The journalist surely had to ask Mohamed about these matters, as that made him the subject of critical reporting.

115. Yes, some enquiries could have been interpreted as covering some of the above, but they certainly were not specific enough, given what was reported.

Third complaint: Misstating a transaction

    1. The complaint is that the statement “SASM sold a portion of its shares to Alfeco Holdings” is factually incorrect, as Arena admits – the statement in question is imprecise as Coin Wise was the seller, Alfeco the purchaser, and the issued shares and claims in PRIP were the subject of the proposed sale. SASM did not itself sell part of its issued shares.
    2. While this statement is inaccurate, I agree with Arena that the imprecision does not affect the article’s central subject or materially change the nature or seriousness of the allegations.
    3. I find Arena’s offer to publish the following reasonable: “The proposed transaction concerned Coin Wise’s sale to Alfeco of shares and claims in PRIP, which owned the property on which SASM operated and was SASM’s shareholder. SASM did not itself sell a portion of its shares.”
    4. I would add: “As we have previously published.”

Fourth complaint: Arbitration appeal materially misstated, diminished

  1. This complaint is twofold:

a. The following statement is said to be false: “Despite a recent arbitration award restoring shares to Mohamed…” – Mohamed says the shares were not restored to him personally, they were restored to Coin Wise; and

b. The article materially distorts the transaction by omitting key outcomes of the arbitration and appeal. These include the agreement being declared invalid, the restoration of the status quo, the return of the PRIP shares to Coin Wise, the dismissal of Alfeco and PRIP’s counterclaim, the dismissal of their appeal with costs, and the subsequent implementation of the awards.

Shares to Mohamed

  1. It may be true, as Arena says, that it is common in journalism to identify a corporate holding by reference to the controlling or associated individual. However, I am not convinced that reasonable readers would have understood it in that way.
  2. Therefore, I believe that this aspect needs a correction – the shares were not restored to Mohamed personally, but to Coin Wise.

Omission of key outcomes

  1. I agree with Arena that the article did not need to include every aspect of the arbitration order, including addenda, status quo ante relief, costs, counterclaims and the tribunal’s composition. The key point was that the ownership dispute resulted in an award restoring the shares, while Alfeco maintained that the separate criminal matter remained unaffected.

Fifth complaint: Inaccurate reporting concerning the IDC criminal complaint

  1. Mohamed complains that the article falsely says that the NPA closed multiple criminal complaints from the IDC and refused to prosecute them, while his letter clarified that the NPA withdrew only one specific complaint.
  2. He argues that the inaccurate reporting is material because it contributes to the article’s broader suggestion that the write-off and alleged misconduct were being concealed or “papered over”.
  3. Arena’s defence in this regard is reasonable. Wheatley says the NPA could neither withdraw the IDC’s complaint nor close the police docket, it could only decline to prosecute. The NPA could not withdraw a matter that had not been enrolled. “’Refusal to prosecute’ was therefore an accurate, concise description. Arena cannot be expected to repeat a legally incorrect characterisation.”

Sixth complaint: Falsely implying established misuse

  1. The sentence in dispute states that Mohamed was charged with fraud, theft and Companies Act contraventions “relating to his alleged role in the misuse of what are essentially public funds”.
  2. The gist of this complaint is that the article unfairly presents the alleged misuse and embezzlement of public funds as established facts, despite the fact that there is no such court finding. Mohamed argues that the article fails to adequately reflect his denial of the allegations and omits that the same allegations were dismissed in Alfeco’s arbitration counterclaim.
  3. These are my main considerations:

a. It is not true that the article presents any allegation as a fact – the word “alleged” is adequately used;

b. The criminal-process context (pending charges, Mohamed being on bail, and a further court appearance) would signal to readers that guilt had not been determined, as Arena correctly points out; and

c. Mohamed’s denials were included through his attorney’s statements about the charges, cooperation, the withdrawn IDC complaint and his arrest.

Seventh complaint: The unrelated road incident

  1. There is nothing in the Press Code that disallows such reporting, even if it may be unrelated. Arena is correct in saying, “A brief reference identifying why a subject had recently been prominent is not unethical merely because it concerns a different incident…”

Misleading impression

  1. Mohamed reads too much into the words in dispute. Wheatley’s argument, as documented under Paragraph 82, is solid. Let me repeat the gist of his argument: “Those phrases can describe function or association, not legal employment or ownership.”

Eighth complaint: Anonymous sources, verification

  1. The complaint is that the newspaper received its information about the IDC’s intention to write off more than R1b from two unidentified internal sources, while the IDC did not directly confirm the decision – and then presents the allegation as an established fact in the opening paragraph.
  2. Mohamed also asks whether this information was sufficiently corroborated.
  3. Arena’s response to this complaint hits the bullseye. Wheatley writes: “The question is whether the sources were independently placed, had direct knowledge, were tested against one another and other information, and gave Arena reasonable grounds to publish the statement in the manner that it did.”
  4. In support of this, he submits that Arena did seek on-record comment from the IDC.
  5. Arena is also correct in stating that internal sources need not be authorised institutional spokespersons; confidential sources may be necessary and are protected by the Press Code, provided their information is appropriately corroborated.

Ninth complaint: Selective use of Mohamed’s response

  1. The gist of this complaint is that the article does not fairly reflect Mohamed’s response because it omits critical factual context, while giving the opposing party the final word.
  2. Selection of information is inherent in journalism, as Arena correctly says. Therefore, the issue is not the fact that the article omits some pieces of information, but rather whether those omissions are material.
  3. I do not agree with Arena’s argument that those omissions are immaterial.
  4. I notice that Skiti does quote from Dollie’s letter that had been sent the day after the deadline. This means that the reporter shifted his deadline – which is good, under the circumstances.
  5. However, it also means that Skiti had the opportunity to publish other pieces of information that were relevant to his article.
  6. This, he did not do. His most serious omission is Mohamed’s explicit denial of having had knowledge of the alleged decision by the IDC to write off more than R1 billion.
  7. This is particularly serious, as that is the central theme of the article – and Mohamed was involved in the criminal case regarding the R1 billion “write-off”. This, to me, is inconceivable.
  8. The complaint about having given Alfeco a “last word” is spurious.

Tenth complaint: Material omission of live business rescue, recovery context

  1. The gist of the complaint is that the statements that SASM remains “trapped in business rescue”, that more than 1,100 jobs have reportedly been lost and that the IDC’s exposure is unlikely to be recovered create the false impression that its business rescue process has simply failed, that the deterioration of SASM is inevitable and that no credible alternative remains available – while Sunday Times was expressly informed of the pending application for the removal of the BRP.
  2. I cannot agree with Mohamed on this issue – the article does not say or imply that the business rescue process has failed and that the deterioration of SASM is inevitable. What it does say is that the SASM loan recovery is “unlikely” (in the sub-heading) and that “the funds are unlikely to be recovered in the foreseeable future” (in the article). I also note that Mohamed does not produce any evidence that it is untrue that more than 1 100 metalworkers’ jobs have “reportedly” been lost.

FINDING

First complaint: Subheading falsely recording an IDC admission

  1. The wording in the sub-heading that the “IDC admits” (that loan recovery from SASM is unlikely) is not supported by the article itself. It ascribes this information as a fact, rather than an allegation. This is in breach of Clause 10.1 of the Press Code, which reads, “Headlines … shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report … in question.”

Second complaint: Published allegations never put to Mohamed

  1. The reporter did not:

a. give Mohamed reasonable time to respond to rather complicated questions. This is in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Code that says, “(A subject of critical reportage) should be afforded reasonable time to respond…”; and

b. put some material questions to Mohamed prior to publication. This is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Code: “The media shall present news in context and in a balanced manner…”

Third complaint: Misstating a transaction

  1. The statement “SASM sold a portion of its shares to Alfeco Holdings” is factually incorrect. This is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Code: “The media shall take care to report news … accurately…”

Fourth complaint: Arbitration appeal materially misstated, diminished

  1. The statement that shares were restored to Mohamed is technically incorrect, as they were awarded to Coin Wise. This is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Code: “The media shall take care to report news … accurately…”

Ninth complaint: Selective use of Mohamed’s response

  1. Skiti neglected to report Mohamed’s explicit denial of having had any knowledge of the alleged decision to write off R1 billion. That was a serious omission, as it was central to the story and therefore a material piece of information.
  2. This is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code which reads, “The media shall present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by … material omissions…”
  3. The rest of the complaint is

SANCTION

  1. The publications are directed to apologise to Mohamed for:

a. neglecting to report his denial of having had knowledge of the alleged decision by the IDC to write off R1 billion;

b. not affording him reasonable time to respond; and

c. publishing material allegations that affected him but were not put to him.

155. The publications are directed to give Mohamed a right of reply to what is recorded in Paragraph 16 (if he still wants to reply), which should then be included in the apology. This right of reply should be no more than 300 words.

156. The publications are reprimanded for incorrectly stating:

a. in the sub-heading, as a fact (rather than an allegation), that the IDC admitted that loan recovery from SASM was unlikely;

b. that “SASM sold a portion of its shares to Alfeco Holdings” and are directed to clarify this by stating: “The proposed transaction concerned Coin Wise’s sale to Alfeco of shares and claims in PRIP, which owned the property on which SASM operated and was SASM’s shareholder. SASM did not itself sell a portion of its shares, as we have previously reported”; and

c. that shares were restored to Mohamed, instead of to Coin Wise. This should also be corrected.

157. The above should:

a. 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;

b. be published in print and on all platforms of the publication where the article was published;

c. be published, with appropriate prominence, with the apology in the introductory sentence and with a headline including the words “apology” and “Mohamed”;

d. refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;

e. end with the sentence, “Visit org.za for the full finding”;

f. be published with the logo of the Press Council; and

g. 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 Deputy Press Ombud

5 October 2026

 

 

 

Related Posts