Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Theresia Bezuidenhout v Sunday Times

, ,

Ruling: Acting Deputy Press Ombud

Complaint number: PCSA; 000808

Author: Sipho Masondo

Headline: How a ‘cabal’ allegedly rigged liquidation appointment – SIU investigation exposes alleged fraud, corruption and manipulation involving master’s office officials and insolvency practitioners

Publication Date: 27 September 2026

Date lodged: 29 September 2026

Link to story: https://www.sundaytimes.timeslive.co.za/news/2026-09-26-how-a-cabal-allegedly-rigged-liquidation-appointments/

Particulars

  1. This ruling is based on correspondence from Johan Walker of John Walberg Attorneys, on behalf of Theresia Bezuidenhout (henceforth, “Walker” or “Bezuidenhout”), and the legal advisor of Arena Holdings, Robin Wheatley, on behalf of Sunday Times.

The article

  1. The introductory paragraph reads: “An explosive Special Investigating Unit (SIU) investigation has uncovered evidence that a ‘cabal’[1] of master’s office officials, liquidators and insolvency practitioners allegedly captured South Africa’s lucrative liquidation system, rigging appointments, engineering creditor support and, in some cases, committing fraud and corruption to channel lucrative insolvencies to a favoured few.”
  2. The article names Bezuidenhout, the former Acting Chief Master, as the person “at the centre of the findings” of an SIU report, asserting that the latter found that she had “improperly interfered in at least two critical liquidator appointments”.
  3. Those concerned the Bosasa liquidation (regarding the appointment of the late Cloete Murray) and the Duro Pressings matter.
  4. Masondo also reports as follows: “The SIU’s investigation found that on February 25 2019, Bezuidenhout departed from the established way of appointing liquidators, assembled a team of officials from different master’s offices and instructed them to specifically appoint Murray as Bosasa’s provisional liquidator.”
  5. The article also says that Bezuidenhout “may be guilty of contravening section 2 of the Estates Act”.

The complaint

Introduction

  1. Bezuidenhout says that Masondo directed written questions to her. Those questions, she submits, were framed on the false premise that the SIU had “found” or “concluded” that she had acted improperly.
  2. She says her response was not a mere denial, as she inter alia stated that:

a. the allegations regarding the Bosasa/Murray appointment had already been the subject of internal disciplinary hearings, conducted by the Department over several years;

b. she had been acquitted of, and exonerated on, the charges relating to those appointment allegations;

c. she had been acquitted on all charges, save one – which concerned her handling of disciplinary steps against an official of the Master’s Office (the Masuku matter). However, even that conviction had been set aside on arbitration;

d. she has no recollection of the Duro Pressings matter attributed to her; and

e. the conclusions of the SIU were disputed and, in her view, discredited.

9. She submits: “The untested investigative findings and referrals ought not to be published as though they were judicially established facts” – and yet, the article was published without reflecting any of the exculpatory facts (except to report that she had been reinstated). “The reader is accordingly left with the impression that the SIU’s ‘appointment-rigging findings’ against me stand unrebutted, when in truth I was cleared of them.”

10. Bezuidenhout concludes that the article is inaccurate, unfair, unbalanced and misleading.

Context

  1. Walker submits inter alia that:

a. the SIU report contained untested investigative conclusions and referrals, “therefore not adjudicated findings of guilt”;

b. the appointment allegations against Bezuidenhout had been tested in the Department’s own internal disciplinary proceedings – and she was acquitted. Stating that she was “at the centre” of the SIU’s findings was therefore materially misleading;

c. an independent senior disciplinary tribunal acquitted her of all charges except for one – which concerned the unrelated Masuku matter, and which was later set aside on arbitration;

d. the State took this matter to court – which was pending at the time of publication. “A one-sided publication of the State’s (SIU’s) untested findings, stripped of the exculpatory facts, is therefore not only unfair to me but is capable of prejudicing proceedings that are before the courts, a circumstance that heightened, rather than diminished, the care that the newspaper was required to exercise”;

e. she was not disciplinary charged regarding the Duro Pressings matter – the allegation was untested and sourced from an implicated person;

f. the information was easily obtainable;

g. the reporter was informed that the SIU afforded her no opportunity to defend herself;

h. the SIU report had not been made public at the time of publication; and

i. the journalist disregarded her written response.

Breaches of the Press Code

Clause 1.1 – Failure to report truthfully, accurately and fairly

  1. Bezuidenhout complains that the article:

a. presented the SIU’s untested conclusion that she had “improperly interfered” in liquidator appointments as though it was established;

b. omitted the fact that she had been acquitted in a disciplinary process; and

c. inaccurately stated that the reinstatement had been ordered by the CCMA, rather than following an arbitration under the General Public Sectoral Bargaining Council.

Clause 1.2 – Failure to present news in context and in a balanced manner; material omissions

  1. The complaint is that the article failed to mention the materially important fact that Bezuidenhout had been acquitted of the appointment allegations. This, she contends, reflected a one-sided premise and merely advanced the SIU’s case against her. “The overall effect is tendentious and unbalanced,” she submits.

Clause 1.3 – Failure to distinguish allegation from fact

  1. Bezuidenhout complains that the repeated use of the statements that the SIU had “found” and “concluded” created the wrong impression that she “may be guilty”.

Clause 1.7 – Failure to verify doubtful information

  1. Walker argues that, given the fact that Bezuidenhout informed the journalist that the SIU report had not been mandated to make legal findings and that its conclusions were untested, he was obliged to verify the reliability of his information before publishing the conclusions as fact.

Clause 1.8 – Failure to fairly reflect her response

  1. The complaint is that the journalist failed to properly report her response. “The single oblique reference to a ‘reinstated’ employee neither names me nor conveys the substance of my response…” Bezuidenhout submits.

Clause 10.1 – Misleading headline and overall impression

  1. Bezuidenhout complains that the headline, together with the framing and emphasis of the article involved her, by name and photograph, within that “cabal”. She concludes, “… the overall impression created is materially false and unfair, the more so given my pre-publication response and my acquittal.”

Clause 3.3 – Failure to exercise proper care regarding her dignity and reputation

  1. Given the fact that the article imputed to her impropriety, improper interference in public appointments, and possible criminal conduct, Bezuidenhout says the article was foreseeably capable of causing substantial harm to her personal and professional reputation.

Relief sought

  1. Bezuidenhout asks the Sunday Times to:

a. publish a prominent correction and apology, and to amend or remove the online version of the article;

b. record clearly that:

i. the SIU material relied upon consisted of disputed and untested investigative findings and referrals, and not adjudicated findings of guilt;

ii. she denied the wrongdoing alleged;

iii. the appointment allegations against her were ventilated in a disciplinary process, in which SIU officials were interrogated, and that she was acquitted of them;

iv. the only adverse finding against her concerned a separate matter and was set aside on review / arbitration, with her reinstatement having been ordered;

v. no decision to prosecute her has been taken because of the SIU findings;

c. publish the above with due prominence; and

d. grant further or alternative relief as this office considers to be just.

Reply to the complaint

Introduction

  1. Arena maintains the newspaper’s right to report on the SIU investigation, noting that its report has not been challenged or set aside by a court.
  2. However, it also acknowledges that the article should have included the material substance of Bezuidenhout’s pre-publication response. It proposes a focused remedy to address this omission without withdrawing the reporting of the SIU investigation (see below).

The complaint

  1. Wheatley says the complaint raises two issues: whether the Sunday Times was entitled to report the SIU investigation and findings, and whether the article conveyed Bezuidenhout’s response.
  2. He denies that the omission of her response was materially unfair and unbalanced.

Public interest; the status of the report

  1. Arena submits that:

a. under Masuku v SIU and Others [2021], it may evaluate evidence and express conclusions about possible impropriety even where no criminal or civil proceedings follow;

b. the absence of prosecution or conviction does not, by itself, make its findings unreportable. “The relevant distinction is between accurately reporting an investigative finding and presenting the underlying allegation as adjudicated guilt. Arena’s reporting must be assessed against that distinction and the actual contents of the Report”;

c. a denial or subsequent disciplinary outcome does not automatically render the reporting inaccurate or unfair;

d. the investigation concerned matters of significant public interest;

e. Bezuidenhout’s former senior public office and the report’s discussion of her conduct justified scrutiny, and that the article identified the report as its source;

f. Bezuidenhout’s proposition that the report cannot be an official document is too broad – its provenance and its public availability are separate questions; and

g. it “relies on the public interest in reporting the investigation and on the accuracy and fairness of the reporting to be established from the Report”.

Pre-publication exchange

  1. Arena says the reporter sought Bezuidenhout’s comment on specific issues arising from the investigation, as evidenced by screenshots.
  2. However, the article did omit the substance of her response, and the general reference to an unnamed employee’s reinstatement did not adequately convey her position or link the development to her. This “omission should be remedied expressly and with appropriate prominence,” Wheatley says.

Disciplinary proceedings, the default arbitration award

  1. Wheatley says Bezuidenhout’s default arbitration award and the subsequent challenge to it in the Labour Court “do not detract from Arena’s ability to report on the report in the manner it did”.

Response to the alleged breaches 1

Clauses 1.1 and 1.2: Accuracy, fairness and material context

  1. Arena submits that the investigation concerned matters of substantial public interest and that the SIU’s report provided a substantial documentary and legal basis for reporting those matters. “Its adverse conclusions were newsworthy notwithstanding that they were disputed or had not resulted in convictions.”
  2. Moreover, Wheatley says that Arena reported accurately and fairly on the content of the SIU’s report. He adds that Bezuidenhout’s response did dispute the findings and identified disciplinary outcomes which, according to her, materially affected how the allegations should be understood. “However, (that) does not alter the findings in the Report.”
  3. Arena concedes that the article should have included Bezuidenhout’s denial of wrongdoing, reliance on the disciplinary outcomes and challenge to the SIU’s findings. However, it argues that this omission does not establish that the reporting was otherwise inaccurate or unfair, that the report was fabricated or that the investigation should not have been reported.
  4. Wheatley clarifies: “This concession concerns an omission of necessary context. It is not an admission that every statement drawn from the Report was inaccurate and/or unfair or that the Report was fabricated or that the investigation should not have been reported. It is worth repeating that the findings in the internal hearing and the default arbitration do not affect the content of the Report. Accordingly, this complaint should be dismissed.”

Clause 1.3: Distinguishing facts, allegations, investigative conclusions

  1. Arena argues that reporting an investigative body’s findings does not imply that a court has found the person guilty – a report can accurately describe an investigation’s conclusions even when the conduct remains disputed. However, the article must distinguish clearly between the report’s findings, referrals for further proceedings and findings of guilt by a court.
  2. Wheatley adds that the Masuku judgment explains that the SIU’s opinions are not final or determinative. “That qualification concerns the legal status of its conclusions. It does not deprive their existence or contents of news value,” he argues.
  3. The proposed correction, he continues, will therefore expressly identify the relevant conclusions as disputed SIU findings and recommendations. It will record Bezuidenhout’s material denials and distinguish any subsequent disciplinary outcome from the earlier investigative conclusion.
  4. Wheatley concludes: “Given the correction proposed and further that the findings of the employment related matters have no bearing on the Report (as submitted to the President), this complaint should be dismissed.”

Clause 1.7: Verification of doubtful information

  1. Arena submits that the matter is twofold – whether the SIU’s report is authentic, and whether the article accurately represents its contents.
  2. Wheatley says an official investigative report is a legitimate source for newspaper reporting. Although the attorneys’ response identified disciplinary outcomes and challenged the findings, this did not prevent the newspaper from reporting on the report.
  3. Contending that Bezuidenhout’s disagreement with the SIU’s legal analysis does not, in itself, prove that the report was fabricated or factually incorrect, he submits that this part of the complaint should be dismissed.

Clause 1.8: Fair reflection of the response

  1. Wheatley says it is a matter of record that the journalist did seek Bezuidenhout’s comments prior to publication.
  2. He adds that Arena has conceded that the article did not fairly reflect Bezuidenhout’s response and has proposed to rectify that mistake (see below).

Alleged tendentious presentation and failure of care

  1. Arena says that detailed and challenging questions concerning alleged misconduct by a senior public official are not inherently unfair. “A journalist may put adverse evidence directly and invite an explanation. The proper inquiry is whether the questions accurately convey the allegations and their source, allow a meaningful response and are followed by fair reporting.”

Clause 10.1: The headline

  1. Arena submits that the headline reasonably reflects the article’s central subject: the SIU’s investigation into alleged manipulation of liquidation appointments involving officials and insolvency practitioners – as required by Clause 10.1 of the Press Code.
  2. Wheatley argues inter alia:

a. The word “allegedly” clarifies that the conduct described remains an allegation rather than an established finding of guilt;

b. Although “How” introduces the alleged methods, the headline must be read as a whole – the qualification also applies to the claim that appointments were rigged;

c. The subheading identifies the SIU investigation as the source and describes the misconduct as alleged;

d. The quotation marks around “cabal” provide a further indication that the expression is a characterisation requiring qualification;

e. The word “rigged” is a concise description of the alleged manipulation under investigation;

f. The article reports allegations of interference in appointments, fabricated creditor support and improper relationships in the allocation of liquidation work. These allegations, drawn from the report, support the headline’s central theme; and

g. The headline concerns the wider investigation and does not name Bezuidenhout or expressly accuse her of every form of misconduct discussed.

44. Arena accordingly submits that the complaint about the headline should be dismissed.

Proposed resolution – apology and correction

  1. Arena says it accepts that the substantive response furnished by Bezuidenhout should have been included in the article. It proposes to publish the following apology and correction prominently and to amend the article accordingly:
  2. On 27 September 2026, the Sunday Times published an article titled “How a ‘cabal’ allegedly rigged liquidation appointments”. Our article omitted the substantive response provided by Ms Bezuidenhout’s attorneys before publication. We apologise to Ms Bezuidenhout for this omission and the resulting unfairness. The article should have included the following:
  3. Through her attorneys, Bezuidenhout rejected the SIU’s findings, saying she had been acquitted of charges relating to the Bosasa and Cons Murch matters in a departmental disciplinary process and none of the allegations by the SIU survived to the arbitration before the bargaining council where she obtained a default arbitration award. Her legal team further contended that the SIU had failed to afford her an opportunity to respond to the allegations and described the report’s conclusions as legally flawed.
  4. Bezuidenhout, who was dismissed from the Department of Justice in relation to a separate matter and is involved in litigation in the Labour Court concerning her reinstatement arising from the default arbitration award, said she had no recollection of the Duro Pressings matter. The SIU report relied on emails and witness evidence in concluding that she had instructed officials to proceed with the disputed appointments; she disputed its findings. Her attorneys described the SIU’s findings as “plainly wrong” and contended that those responsible for them had little understanding of insolvency law.

Rejoinder

  1. Bezuidenhout says Arena’s response does not resolve her complaint. She submits that, while the newspaper admits that it received her substantive response prior to publication but failed to include it, her complaint goes beyond that omission. “The complaint … is that the publisher was furnished, before publication, with objectively true and verifiable facts, i.e that I had been acquitted and that the Special Investigating Unit’s conclusions are untested and are not the findings of any court or tribunal and that it published the accusation against me without them.”
  2. She says the only adverse finding against her was subsequently set aside, and her dismissal was found to be substantively unfair, with an order to reinstate her. “That is a complaint of inaccuracy and unfairness, and it is not answered by adding her denial to an uncorrected accusation.”
  3. Secondly, Bezuidenhout says that “a material omission is itself a departure from the truth”. She argues that, by reporting that the SIU found that she improperly interfered, while omitting that she was tried on those allegations and acquitted, the article created a false impression.
  4. Walker states, “A publication that tells the reader the SIU ‘found’ that our client improperly interfered, while withholding that she was tried on those very allegations and acquitted, is false by omission, whatever the accuracy of its individual sentences. The publisher’s answer that its concession is ‘not an admission that every statement drawn from the Report was inaccurate’ … misses the point. The inaccuracy lies in the impression created, not in any single sentence.”
  5. Bezuidenhout adds that this omission was deliberate, not inadvertent. Although the journalist received her response on September 11 confirming her acquittal, the article was published only on September 27. Despite having more than two weeks to verify this readily ascertainable fact with the Department of Justice or return to her, he did neither. “A failure to verify an exculpatory fact of which the journalist had been expressly warned, when both time and an obvious source were available, is a breach of clause 1.7 and is fatal to any suggestion that the article was the product of reasonable and fair reporting,” Walker submits.
  6. Bezuidenhout says the proposed correction fails to remedy the breaches because it presents exculpatory facts merely as her claims or disputes, while leaving the original allegation of improper interference intact and creating a false equivalence between allegation and fact. “The article, so corrected, would continue to assert as fact that she improperly interfered, and would merely place her denial beside it, perpetuating the very false equivalence complained of,” Walker contends – while the correction omits the material facts that Bezuidenhout was acquitted and that the sole adverse finding against her was subsequently set aside.
  7. It also misrepresents the Duro Pressings matter by implying evasiveness rather than stating that she was never charged.
  8. Walker says the apology addresses only the omission and resulting unfairness, instead of also stating that the article gives a materially inaccurate and unfair account.
  9. Bezuidenhout says Arena’s emphasis on the arbitration award being granted “by default” is irrelevant because her vindication on the SIU allegations rests on her disciplinary acquittal, while the award concerned her separate dismissal. It is also inconsistent for the newspaper to argue that employment matters have no bearing on the report while using the default award to discredit her.
  10. Walker argues that the newspaper’s defence of the headline fails because the use of the word “cabal” is its own pejorative characterisation – it is not SIU’s language. “If the word ‘cabal’ is drawn from the Report, let it identify the passage. Failing which, the quotation marks misrepresent an unsourced and pejorative coinage of the newspaper’s own as though it emanated from the investigation, which is itself misleading,” he submits.
  11. Moreover, although the headline does not name Bezuidenhout, she was “identified to the reader directly, prominently and unmistakably, and personally associated with the alleged ‘cabal’.” Her identification by name, description and photograph therefore aggravates the reputational harm”, Walker opines.
  12. In conclusion, Bezuidenhout submits: “Having conceded as much, it can advance no principled reason to refuse to state, as a fact, what that disciplinary outcome was, i.e. an acquittal.”

Relief sought

  1. In addition to the relief that Bezuidenhout seeks, as documented in paragraph 19, she adds some more requests. I cannot entertain those as the Sunday Times did not have an opportunity to reply to that.
  2. However, Bezuidenhout’s attorneys did state the following, dated October 16. This was six days prior to Arena’s response to the complaint on October 21, which means that I need to take it into consideration:
  3. On 27 September 2026, the Sunday Times published an article titled: “How a ‘cabal’ allegedly rigged liquidation appointments”. Our article omitted the substantive response provided by Ms Bezuidenhout’s attorneys before publication.
  4. We apologise to Ms Bezuidenhout for this omission and the resulting unfairness. The article should have included the following: “Through her attorneys, Bezuidenhout rejected the SIU’s findings, saying she had been acquitted of charges relating to the Bosasa and Cons Murch matters in a departmental disciplinary process and none of the allegations by the SUI survived to the arbitration before the bargaining council where she obtained a default arbitration award.
  5. Her legal team further contended that the SIU had failed to afford her an opportunity to respond to the allegations and described the report’s conclusions as legally flawed. Bezuidenhout, who was dismissed from the Department of Justice in relation to a separate matter and is involved in litigation in the Labour Court concerning her reinstatement arising from the default arbitration award, said she had no recollection of the Duro Pressings matter.
  6. The SIU report relied on emails and witness evidence in concluding that she had instructed officials to proceed with the disputed appointments; she disputed its findings. Her attorneys described the SIU’s findings as “plainly wrong” and contended that those responsible for them had little understanding of insolvency law.

Analysis

  1. The question is not whether the Sunday Times should publish an apology and a correction – both parties agree that some form of relief is needed. The issue is how such a text should be worded. I shall deal with that matter in my sanction.

Clause 1.1 and 1.2 – accuracy, fairness, context balance

  1. The issues are whether the article:

a. presented the SIU’s conclusion that Bezuidenhout had “improperly interfered” in at least two critical liquidator appointments “as though it was established”;

b. omitted the fact that she had been acquitted in a disciplinary process; and

c. inaccurately stated that her reinstatement had been ordered by the CCMA, rather than following an arbitration under the General Public Sectoral Bargaining Council.

‘Improperly interfered as though it was established’

  1. Let me be clear about this from the outset: The Sunday Times had all the right in the world to report what the content of the SIU’s report was, as that matter was in the public interest. There is no debate about that. The questions are whether the article accurately reflected the content, and whether the context was fairly considered. With that, I specifically mean the possibility that the SIU’s conclusions were presented as established facts and not as disputed findings, and whether the article was balanced in that it did not omit material information.
  2. The following sentence in the article is relevant: “At the centre of the findings is former acting chief master (ACM) Theresia Bezuidenhout, whom the SIU found had improperly interfered in at least two critical liquidator appointments.”
  3. Please note that I shall comment on the words “at the centre of the findings” below. For now, let me state that there is nothing wrong with the rest of that sentence. Bezuidenhout does not complain that the SIU did not come to that conclusion; she only says that conclusion is wrong. She has a right to say that – the same right the SIU has to make such a statement.
  4. Unlike Bezuidenhout, I do not read into this sentence – or into the article as a whole, for that matter – that Masondo presented this conclusion as an established fact. In that regard, I take into consideration that:

a. the article reported the content of the SUI’s findings;

b. the article mentioned that the National Prosecuting Authority had not yet acted on the report;

c. the article referred to disciplinary hearings, one of whom was fired but later reinstated; and

d. the matter was referred to the Hawks for further investigation.

73. From the above, I believe that it would have been clear to the reasonable reader that the SIU’s findings or conclusions were not final and indeed also not uncontested.

Acquittal in a disciplinary process not reported

  1. The fact that Masondo omitted the essence of Bezuidenhout’s response is not in dispute. I can only wonder why the journalist went to great lengths to obtain her comment (well done for that) but then neglected to report it.
  2. Let me be clear about this – her denial of the allegations made against her and the omission of the fact that she had been acquitted in a disciplinary process were material. Without that information, the article became heavily one-sided and therefore fundamentally unfair to her.
  3. Of course, Arena is correct that this omission does not establish that the reporting was otherwise inaccurate or unfair, that the report was fabricated or that the investigation should not have been reported. But that is not the point, is it?

Reinstated ‘by the CCMA’

  1. The fact that Arena does not defend itself on this matter, leads me to believe that the reference to the CCMA was indeed inaccurate and that it should instead have referred to an arbitration under the General Public Sectoral Bargaining Council.

Clause 1.3 – Failure to distinguish allegation from fact

  1. The complaint is that the article created the wrong impression that Bezuidenhout “may be guilty” because it repeatedly reported what the SIU had “found” and “concluded”. In that sense, she says, the article failed to distinguish between allegations and facts.
  2. I disagree with her on this issue. Arena correctly argues that reporting an investigative body’s findings does not imply guilt by necessity – a report can accurately describe an investigation’s conclusions even when some issues remain disputed.

Clause 1.7 – Failure to verify doubtful information

  1. Bezuidenhout complains that, given the fact that she informed the journalist that the SIU report had not been mandated to make legal findings and that its conclusions were untested, he was obliged to verify the reliability of his information before publishing the conclusions as fact.
  2. Not so. It is not the media’s job to verify the reliability of such information – that would interfere with the work of the Hawks and the courts, and it will place an impossible burden on the media. The media is the messenger, not the judge or the jury.

Clause 1.8 – Failure to fairly reflect her response

  1. I have already commented on this issue under paragraphs 74 – 75. However, allow me to ventilate this: The obligation to ask and to report the comments of a subject of critical reporting is Journalism 101. I view the journalist’s neglect to do so in a serious light.

Clause 10.1 – Misleading headline, overall impression

  1. This clause requires that headlines should not be misleading and that it should fairly reflect the contents of an article.
  2. I do believe that the headline in contention does meet those criteria – except for the use of the word “cabal”. I have already indicated that “cabal” points to “a small group of people who plan secretly to take action”. It can also be described as a small, secret group of people who join through private plotting, intrigue, or conspiracy – to advance their own interests or to gain power.
  3. Whichever way one looks at it, the word carries a sinister undertone.
  4. Yes, it is true that the headline does not refer to Bezuidenhout or expressly accuse her of any form of misconduct. However, and this is a big “however”, the article says that she was “at the centre of the findings”. When read in context, I cannot interpret the headline in any other way – Bezuidenhout was not only part of the “cabal”, but she was also in fact at its “centre”.
  5. Given the undisputed fact that she had been exonerated (a fact that was not reported), this reference to her – albeit indirectly – was patently unfair.

Clause 3.3 – Failure to exercise proper care regarding her dignity and reputation

  1. Putting myself in Bezuidenhout’s shoes, I cannot but conclude that the journalist did not exercise proper care regarding her dignity and reputation – not in what he reported, but rather in what he omitted to report.

Finding

Clause 1.1 and 1.2 – accuracy, fairness, context balance

‘Improperly interfered’ as though it was established

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Acquittal in a disciplinary process not reported

  1. The article is in breach of Clause 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code in that the omission of Bezuidenhout’s comments prior to publication, specifically her denial of the allegations made against her and the omission of the fact that she had been acquitted in a disciplinary process, were unfair and constituted an intentional or negligent departure from the facts by material omissions. This is a Tier 2 breach (which is serious).

Reinstated ‘by the CCMA’

  1. The article inaccurately stated that Bezuidenhout had been reinstated by the CCMA, instead of referring to arbitration under the General Public Sectoral Bargaining Council. This is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Code. This is a Tier 1 breach (a minor matter).

Clause 1.3 – Failure to distinguish allegation from fact

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Clause 1.7 – Failure to verify doubtful information

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Clause 1.8 – Failure to fairly reflect her response

  1. This part of the complaint is upheld. This is a Tier 2 breach.

Clause 10.1 – Misleading headline

  1. The fact that Bezuidenhout was reported to be at the centre of the SIU’s findings implicated her with the “cabal”. As she had been exonerated, which the reporter knew prior to publication, the headline is misleading and in breach of Clause 10.1 of the Code which reads, “Headlines … shall not mislead the public…” This is a Tier 2 breach.

Clause 3.3 – Failure to exercise proper care regarding her dignity and reputation

  1. As the journalist did not exercise proper care and consideration regarding Bezuidenhout’s dignity and reputation, the article is in breach of Clause 3.3 of the Code. This is a Tier 2 breach.

Sanction

  1. Both parties propose a sanction – Bezuidenhout’s request for relief is documented under paragraphs 19 and 61 to 66; Arena’s proposal for an apology and a correction appear under paragraphs 45 to 48.
  2. The Sunday Times is directed to:a

a. unconditionally apologise to Bezuidenhout for:

i. unfairly omitting her response which she gave well in advance of publication;

ii. not reporting the gist of her response, specifically her denial of the allegations made against her and the fact that she had been acquitted in a disciplinary process – and to amend its viral reportage accordingly;

iii. using the word “cabal” in the headline, while unfairly associating her with it in the article; and

iv. not exercising proper care regarding her dignity and reputation.

b. clarify that:

i. the SIU material relied upon consisted of disputed and untested investigative findings and referrals, and that they were not adjudicated findings of guilt;

ii. the only adverse finding against her concerned a separate matter and was set aside on review / arbitration, with her reinstatement having been ordered; and

iii. no decision to prosecute her has been taken because of the SIU findings.

  1. The newspaper is reprimanded for inaccurately stating that Bezuidenhout had been reinstated by the CCMA, instead of referring to arbitration under the General Public Sectoral Bargaining Council
  2. 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 “Bezuidenhout”;

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

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

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

101. I shall ask for Bezuidenhout’s comments on Arena’s proposed apology and correction before making a final decision on its wording.

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

27 October 2026

[1] The Cambridge dictionary defines the word cabal as “a small group of people who plan secretly to take action”.

Related Posts