Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Bojane Segooa v Sunday World

, ,

Ruling: Acting Deputy Press Ombud

Complaint number: PCSA 000732

Author: Mawande AmaShabalala

Headlines:

  • Controversial ex-Daybreak chair finds soft landing at NSFAS, published on 14 July 2026
  • Parly demands answers after NSFAS hires controversial Daybreak ex-chair, published on 23 July 2026

Date lodged: 28 July 2026

Links to stories:

Particulars

  1. This ruling is based on correspondence from Bojane Segooa, as well as from Caiphus Kgosana, on behalf of Sunday World.

Preface

  1. Because Segooa’s complaint is about two articles, some arguments are inevitably often repeated. Given the seriousness of this case, I have decided to err on the side of caution – I would rather repeat some information than omit important arguments. So please, bear with me.

The articles

The first story

  1. Bojane Segooa, former chairperson of Daybreak Foods, reportedly joined NSFAS’s[1] Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) following her departure from Daybreak amid allegations of mismanagement, questionable board-fee payments, unpaid workers and the mass euthanisation of chickens.
  2. NSFAS insiders alleged she had been appointed without an advertised, competitive process and questioned her suitability for the role. NSFAS confirmed her appointment, citing her chartered-accountant qualification and audit and risk experience, and maintained that the administrator acted within the applicable legal and governance framework.
  3. The report says inter alia the following about Segooa:

a. She “resurfaced” at the NSFAS “despite her past unanswered scandals”;

b. According to the DA, labour abuse and animal cruelty at Daybreak happened under her watch;

c. Insiders alleged that she had been appointed without due process being followed;

d. She “abruptly” left Daybreak “under a dark cloud” where she “controversially cashed out more than half a million rand in board fees before quitting with immediate effect”;

e. She “reportedly” usurped the powers of the then Daybreak CFO, Aubrey Dali, and “gave the powers to a subordinate, which enabled the payout of R625 000 to her”;

f. She allegedly walked away with R625 000, while the company could not afford to feed its animals or to pay its staff;

g. Her appointment allegedly was “nothing short of the perpetuation of state capture”; and

h. She allegedly was not qualified for the job at the NSFAS and lacked the necessary integrity.

The second story

  1. AmaShabalala writes that Tebogo Letsie, chair of Parliament’s Higher Education and Training Portfolio Committee, asked NSFAS administrator Prof Hlengani Mathebula to explain Segooa’s appointment to the entity’s ARC.
  2. Letsie reportedly sought clarity on whether the vacancy had been advertised, what due diligence had been conducted regarding Segooa’s tenure at Daybreak and the controversial R625 000 payout, and whether Treasury regulations’ “fit and proper” requirements had been followed.
  3. He also wanted to know why a legal opinion was not obtained before the appointment and whether it would be suspended pending that opinion.
  4. The article says inter alia the following about Segooa:

a. Her R625 000 payout by Daybreak Foods was controversial;

b. This payout was a “golden handshake”;

c. She left Daybreak with a cloud hanging over her; and

d. She became a member of the ARC that would play an oversight role on the expenditure of the R60-billion NSFAS budget for the 2026-2027 financial year. 

The complaint

The first article

Ground 1: Misrepresentation of NSFAS appointment and uncorroborated anonymous sources

  1. Segooa cites the following statements in the article:

a. “Insiders at NSFAS allege Segooa has since found herself a soft landing at the multi-billion rand entity without a transparent and competitive process”;

b. A “deepthroat” insider is quoted as saying, “Horrible things are happening at NSFAS, and this lady is one of those who have been appointed without a job advert issued, just like the advisors since the Prof (Mathebula) took the reins”; and

c. “Another insider said Segooa’s appointment was nothing short of the perpetuation of state capture, where questionable characters are shifted around public institutions without accounting for their sins.”

11. Segooa submits that the article relies heavily on unverified anonymous sources (“deepthroat”, “insiders”) to falsely allege that her appointment to the ARC was irregular and that it bypassed due processes. “This completely ignores controlling statutory provisions under the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) Sections 51 and 77, National Treasury Regulation 27.1, and the NSFAS Act Section 17A, which govern ARC appointments based on professional competence and objective qualifications (such as being a qualified person meeting the ‘fit and proper’ criteria under Treasury Regulation 27.1.8) rather than public job advertisements.”

12. Although she does not mention the word “scandal” in her complaint, I believe that it is certainly implied.

13. She complains that publishing malicious, uncorroborated allegations of “state capture” based on anonymous hearsay without verifying these statutory realities violates strict requirements of Clause 11.2 of the Press Code.[2]

14. Segooa adds that this reportage is also in breach of Clause 1.1[3], 1.2[4], 3.3.1[5], 6[6] and 7.2[7] of the Code.

Ground 2: Misrepresentation of Segooa’s NSFAS governance role

2 Clause 11.2 reads, “The media shall avoid the use of anonymous sources unless there is no other way to deal with a story, and shall take care to corroborate such information.”
3 Clause 1.1: “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”;
4 Clause 1.2: “The media shall present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarisation.”
5 Clause 3.3.1: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation, which may be overridden only if it is in the public interest and if the facts reported are true or substantially true.”
6 Clause 6: “The media may strongly advocate their own views on controversial topics, provided that they clearly distinguish between fact and opinion, and not misrepresent or suppress or distort relevant facts.”
7 Clause 7.2: “Comment or criticism is protected even if it is extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it is without malice, is on a matter of public interest, has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true, and is presented in a manner that it appears clearly to be comment.”

  1. The following sentence is relevant: “Controversial former chairperson of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC)-owned chicken producer Daybreak Foods, Bojane Segooa, has resurfaced at the … NSFAS as a member of the entity’s … ARC.”
  2. Segooa contends that the overall framing across the article misrepresents her role as an executive or head of the committee rather than an independent non-executive committee member. “The distinction is material because it exaggerates my institutional authority within NSFAS and creates a false impression of governance leverage,” she concludes.
  3. She complains that this reportage constitutes a breach of Clause 1.1, 1.2 and 3.3.1 of the Press Code.

Ground 3: Incorrect Chronology of Daybreak Foods Tenure

  1. While Segooa does not motivate this complaint, she does point me to two annexures in this regard. I shall elaborate on this in my analysis.
  2. She complains that this reportage is in breach of Clause 1.1 and 1.2 of the Code.

Ground 4: Misleading presentation of earned Board fees, omission of fee forfeiture

  1. The following quotes are relevant:

a. “She reportedly usurped the powers of the then Daybreak CFO, Aubrey Dali, and gave the powers to a subordinate, which enabled the payment of R625 000 to her and another R236 000 to her board colleague Kameshni Naidoo”; and

b. “The Sunday Times, at the time of Segooa’s resignation, reported that Daybreak was experiencing a financial crisis with unpaid staff and the chickens dying en masse. It is alleged she quickly demanded the payment of board fees to the tune of R1.2-million.”

21. Segooa complains that, while the article repeatedly highlights the payment of approximately R625 000, framing it as an improper payout secured while staff went unpaid and chickens were starving, the money in fact “represented legitimate, contractually earned deferred Board fees for services rendered between January and March 2025, processed in line with board resolutions”.

22. She says the article omits to report that she had voluntarily forfeited nearly R2 million in Board fees to support Daybreak’s liquidity, employee salaries and animal welfare. “By omitting this context while framing the earned fees as an illegal payout, the article creates a false impression that personal remuneration was prioritized ahead of workers and operational welfare,” she opines.

23. Segooa adds that she acted strictly within her designated mandate – hence, the allegation that she usurped the powers or functions of the CFO is factually incorrect and unsubstantiated.

24. She complains that this constitutes a breach of Clause 1.1, 1.2, 3.3.1, 7.2 and 10.1[8] of the Press Code.

Ground 5: Omission of macroeconomic context (avian flu) and board governance interventions

  1. Segooa highlights the following statements:

a. “The Democratic Alliance (DA) had called on what it termed ‘labour abuse and animal cruelty at Daybreak’ under Segooa after workers last year reportedly went unpaid, leaving families in crisis, while animals were allegedly being kept in unacceptable and inhumane conditions;” and

b. “The DA, in a media statement last year, said one of the most horrific consequences of the alleged mismanagement was the mass euthanisation of more than 350 000 chickens…”

26. Segooa argues that the article unfairly attributes Daybreak Foods’ operational and animal welfare challenges to board mismanagement, while omitting the impact of the 2023 avian influenza outbreak and the company’s resulting financial distress. She says the Board undertook investigations into financial mismanagement, supported Hawks investigations, facilitated an MOU between Daybreak, the NSPCA and Astral Foods to protect breeder birds, secured TERS salary relief for employees for up to a year, and maintained communication with the shareholder.

27. “Omitting these material facts creates a highly unbalanced and misleading narrative,” she concludes.

28. She complains that this reportage is in breach of Clause 1.1, 1.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2,[9] 6, and 7.2 of the Code.

Ground 6: Omission of criminal intimidation and whistleblower safety surrounding Segooa’s resignation

  1. The following statement is relevant: “Segooa abruptly left Daybreak under a dark cloud in May last year, where she controversially cashed out more than half a million rand in board fees before quitting with immediate effect.”
  2. Segooa complains that this reportage insinuates that her departure was an attempt to evade accountability or flee operational distress, while documentary evidence proves that her resignation was directly forced by severe physical safety threats, armed intimidation, and explicit death threats directed at her and her family as a direct consequence of the anti-corruption and financial mismanagement investigations she had spearheaded against senior executive management.

    [1] Clause 10.1 reads: “Headlines … shall not mislead the public and shall give a reasonable reflection of the content of the report…”

    [1] Clause 3.3.2 of the Code states: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation, which may be overridden only if it is in the public interest and if the reportage amounts to protected comment based on facts that are adequately referred to and that are either true or reasonably true.”

  3. She adds that the threat level escalated to the point where board members were held hostage, requiring armed security intervention. These criminal incidents were formally reported to the SAPS. “Omitting these factual circumstances and painting a whistleblower facing extreme danger as feeling a ‘dark cloud’ fundamentally distorts and violates basic tenets of fair commentary and dignity.”
  4. This, she complains, is in breach of Clause 1.1, 1.2, 1.8[10] and 3.3.1 of the Code.

Ground 7: Misleading headline and cumulative effect

  1. The headline reads, “Controversial ex-Daybreak chair finds soft landing at NSFAS”.
  2. Segooa complains that this prominently links her appointment at NSFAS with sensationalised terms (“soft landing”, “controversial ex-Daybreak chair”) that are not supported by factual evidence.
  3. She complains that the headline creates a materially false, biased, and defamatory overall impression and argues that it is in breach of Clause 1.1, 1.2, 3.3.1, and 10.1 of the Press Code.

The second article

In general

  1. Segooa complains that the newspaper republished unverified, defamatory allegations regarding her exit from Daybreak Foods, recycled inaccurate board fee figures, and presented parliamentary inquiries as confirmed findings of wrongdoing.

In particular

Ground 1: Golden handshake; improper payout

  1. Segooa says the references to a “R625 000 payout” and a “golden handshake controversy” (while staff reportedly went unpaid and livestock unfed) constituted contractually earned, deferred board fees for services rendered between January and March 2025, processed strictly in accordance with approved delegation frameworks. “It was not a severance package, ‘golden handshake,’ or unlawful distribution.”
  2. Moreover, the newspaper omitted that she had voluntarily forfeited nearly R2 million in earned fees to prioritize worker salaries and animal welfare.

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

  3. These, she submits, were in breach of Clause 1.1, 1.2, 3.3.1, 7.2 and 10.1 of the Press Code.

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

Ground 2: Whistleblower death threats as a cause for resignation

  1. Segooa says her resignation from Daybreak was forced by severe physical safety threats, armed intimidation, and explicit death threats after she exposed internal corruption involving senior executives (currently under active Hawks investigation). These issues were left unreported, and she was not given a right of reply. She says the reportage unnecessarily harmed her dignity and reputation.
  2. She complains that this was in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.8 and 3.3.1 of the Code.

Ground 3: Job not advertised

  1. Segooa says the article inaccurately frames preliminary administrative questions from Parliament regarding Section 51(1)(a) of the PFMA as proof of procedural illegality and her unfitness for office.
  2. She submits that ARC appointments do not legally mandate public job advertisements, adding that she was appointed as an independent non-executive committee member, not as an executive officer.
  3. The complaint is that this reportage was in breach of Clause 1.1, 1.2, 3.3, 6, and 7.2.

Relief

The first article

  1. Segooa asks this office to direct the newspaper to:

a. publish, with due prominence, a full correction addressing the factual inaccuracies identified in her complaint;

b. retract the inaccurate and misleading statements identified in her complaint;

c. publish an unreserved apology acknowledging that the article contained material inaccuracies and omissions that created a misleading impression of her conduct, integrity, and professional responsibilities; and

d. amend the online version of the article across all platforms so that it accurately reflects the documentary evidence contained in the annexures and remove the identified inaccuracies.

The second article

  1. Segooa asks for:
  2. a full retraction and apology for falsely characterising earned fees as a “golden handshake” and omitting critical safety/whistleblower context; and
  3. an amendment of the newspaper’s digital archives across all platforms to incorporate the true facts regarding Board fee forfeitures, Hawks corruption dockets, and statutory ARC governance frameworks.

Reply to both complaints

  1. Kgosana replies that:

a. the main fact that Segooa was appointed to the NSFAS ARC is true. “We did not say she was an executive, employee, or chairperson” – and therefore, the article did not misrepresent her role;

b. the journalist asked NSFAS about Segooa’s appointment. It replied in writing and confirmed that she had been appointed and that no public advertisement had been needed. “Our article included both the criticism and NSFAS’s defence”;

c. the article quoted a source saying Segooa was appointed without a job advert. “We admit her appointment was NOT a job or employment contract. But the phrase came from the source, not from us. More importantly, we also published NSFAS’s view that no advert was required”;

d. the article presented allegations as claims, not as facts;

e. Segooa’s Daybreak background was relevant because she was appointed to an entity funded by a public entity (Public Investment Corporation). “We reported on past criticism but did not say she committed crimes”;

f. Segooa’s claim that she forfeited almost R2 million does not prove that she did not receive R625 000. Also, the article did not report that the payment was criminal;

g. the journalist did not give Segooa a right of reply. “We accept this is the weak point in our story. But we say this is a procedural issue, not a false report”;

h. regarding the reporting on details about bird flu and other issues, an article does not have to include every detail. “Our main point was about her appointment to the NSFAS, not a full report on Daybreak”;

i. the phrase “soft landing” was a fair description based on the facts. “We made clear this was criticism from insiders, not our own view”;

j. Segooa says the article got the date of her resignation wrong, while she has not indicated what the correct date is;

k. the caption used the word “disgraced” – which is stronger than the article itself, which used the word “controversial.” He proposes to change the caption to read, “Former Daybreak board chair Bojane Segooa has been appointed as a member of the NSFAS Audit and Risk Committee”; and

l. the journalist did not print every word of NSFAS’s rely – which was not necessary, as the Press Code only requires fair representation, and not a word-for-word copying of the text.

48. Sunday World concludes that it rejects the request for a full retraction, apology, or removal of the articles. “We believe these actions would be too extreme, given (that) the main facts were correct.”

Rejoinder

The first article

Admissions by the newspaper

  1. Segooa notes the newspaper admits that:

a. it did not give her a right of reply;

b. the caption, which describes her as “disgraced”, is “stronger than the article itself”, and that it has offered to amend that word;

c. her appointment to the ARC followed the Scheme’s prescribed statutory governance process under the PFMA, National Treasury Regulations and the NSFAS Act, none of which requires public advertisement;

d. she voluntarily forfeited Board fees in the amount alleged, the response stating only that this “doesn’t prove the R625 000 payment didn’t happen” – which is not, and has never been, her complaint; and

e. the article omitted any reference to the 2023 Avian Influenza outbreak, the TERS application, the Hawks investigations into other executives, and the criminal intimidation preceding her resignation, its sole answer being that “an article doesn’t have to include every detail”.

50. She says the newspaper’s response focuses on individual statements rather than whether the article as a whole is truthful, accurate, fair, contextualised and free of material omissions, while her complaint concerns the cumulative, materially false impression created by the reportage.

Response to various issues

Appointment: Inference of impropriety

  1. Segooa says her complaint is not that the article misstates the fact of her appointment. “It is that the article’s structure and language – ‘resurfaced’, ‘soft landing’, a caption reading ‘disgraced’ – invite the reader to draw an inference of impropriety the documentary record does not support. Confirming the literal accuracy of the appointment does not answer that complaint.”

Verification

  1. Segooa says Clause 11.2 of the Press Code does not merely require that a denial be sought and published alongside an allegation; it also requires the media to “take care to corroborate” information from anonymous sources before publication. She argues that NSFAS’s general statement that its process “requires that members possess the requisite independence, qualifications, skills and experience” is not corroboration – it is a denial. She argues that publishing a denial alongside an unverified allegation does not discharge a newspaper’s separate duty to corroborate its information.

The job advert

  1. Segooa argues that Sunday World cannot evade responsibility by attributing the claim that her job was not advertised to an anonymous source – by publishing and foregrounding it, the newspaper adopted the claim. Having built the article’s central narrative around it, the publication “… was obliged to verify it with the same rigour as if it had made the claim itself”.

Sheltering defamatory hearsay behind attribution

  1. In response to the newspaper’s argument that it did not say that the allegations were true, Segooa argues that the use of qualifying language such as “insiders allege” does not cure a failure to corroborate. “The Code does not permit a publication to shelter defamatory hearsay behind attribution alone…”

Relevance of the Daybreak background

  1. Segooa says she has never contended that her prior role at Daybreak Foods was irrelevant to a report on her NSFAS appointment. “The complaint is not that the [newspaper] reported on that background; it is that the account it gave of that background was materially incomplete…”

Chronology

  1. Based on documentary evidence, Segooa submits that her board tenure spanned approximately a year, the greater part of it as a non-executive Audit Committee chairperson with no operational authority, and only the final three months as interim chairperson.
  2. She says the R625 000 payment on which the article’s central “soft landing” narrative depends related to fees earned across that entire preceding period, deferred by board resolution during the liquidity crisis, and paid – in part only – five months after the quarter to which it related.
  3. The article’s account that she “abruptly left … where she controversially cashed out … before quitting with immediate effect”, compresses this into a single opportunistic act. “The chronology … shows the opposite: a lengthy tenure, contractually earned and progressively deferred fees, and a departure precipitated by criminal intimidation rather than any decision of [her] own.”

Usurped powers

  1. The article says that Segooa has “usurped the powers of the then Daybreak CFO, Aubrey Dali, and gave the powers to a subordinate, which enabled the payment of R625 000 to her”.
  2. She provides this office with documentary evidence which contradicts this allegation. For example:

a. no power was taken from Dali – a vacant Chief Executive power was formally, transparently and collectively reserved for her by a resolution of the Board, recorded in writing, signed by four fellow directors, and available to any journalist who requested it; and

b. no power was “given to a subordinate” – the resolution reserved the authority to her personally.

61. She concludes that every material element of this specific allegation is contradicted by the primary governance record the journalist did not consult prior to publication.

R625 000, R2 million

  1. Segooa says she has never disputed receiving R625 000; she disputes the fairness of reporting that figure, framed as an improper “payout” secured while “chickens were dying en masse”, while omitting that she was, on the company’s own creditor records, owed a further R1 988 367 in fees, which she elected to forfeit in full to protect the company’s recovery. “Both figures relate to the same remuneration for the same tenure. Reporting one without the other is not a matter of space or emphasis; it inverts the picture the full record presents.”

Omission of avian influenza context, governance interventions

  1. Segooa says she does not ask the newspaper to recite every detail of Daybreak’s operational history. She merely argues that “the single sentence of context necessary to prevent a false impression – that the company’s distress substantially predated her appointment and was industry-wide – not be omitted where the article otherwise attributes that distress, and its animal welfare consequences, to her tenure”.

Criminal intimidation surrounding resignation not reported

  1. Segooa submits the article’s characterisation of her departure as leaving “under a dark cloud” is not merely incomplete; on the documentary record, it inverts the true position. She says her resignation followed threats and intimidation directed at her and her family, escalating to an incident in which board members were held hostage, formally reported to SAPS and confirmed in her own media statement.
  2. She argues that her resignation was not prompted by misconduct or wrongdoing on her part, as the phrase “under a dark cloud” suggests. Rather, she was compelled to leave because of documented threats to her personal safety, which arose directly from her role in overseeing investigations into executive fraud.
  3. Omitting this context creates a misleading and unfair impression of the circumstances surrounding her departure.

The headline, caption, cumulative effect

  1. Segooa says she welcomes the newspaper’s offer to change the image caption from “disgraced” to a neutral formulation as a partial and overdue correction.
  2. However, she contends that this does not address the headline and the words “soft landing”. Taken cumulatively, “the article’s overall impression is not merely unflattering. It is false in specific, material and demonstrable respects, each capable of correction, none of which the response answers on the documentary merits,” she submits.

The second article

  1. Segooa responds inter alia that:

a. she has never denied that she was appointed to the NSFAS’s ARC, nor that the appointment letter describes her as an independent member rather than an executive. Rather, her complaint is that the article’s structure and language (“resurfaced”, “soft landing”, and a caption reading “disgraced”) invite the reader to draw an inference of impropriety the documentary record does not support. “Confirming the literal accuracy of the appointment does not answer that complaint”;

b. Clause 11.2 of the Press Code requires more than seeking and publishing a denial; it requires the media to “take care to corroborate” information from anonymous sources before publication. NSFAS’s general statement about the independence, qualifications, skills and experience required of its members does not corroborate the allegation; it is a denial. The newspaper did not verify the legal basis for the “insiders’” claim that a public advertisement was required. “Publishing a denial alongside an unverified allegation discharges the duty to be balanced; it does not discharge the separate duty to corroborate.” Consulting the publicly available statutory framework would have shown before publication that the claim was unfounded. In other words, publishing NSFAS’s denial may contribute to balanced reporting, but it does not, by itself, establish that the anonymous sources’ claim was verified;

c. Sunday World’s argument that the phrase about a job advertisement “came from the source, not from us” misapprehends its own obligation. “Having elected to publish the claim, and to build the article’s central narrative around it, the [newspaper] adopted it and was obliged to verify it with the same rigour as if it had made the claim itself”;

d. the use of qualifying language such as “insiders allege” does not cure a failure to corroborate. “The Code does not permit a publication to shelter defamatory hearsay behind attribution alone, particularly where, as here, the allegation could have been tested against public law in the time it takes to read the applicable statute”;

e. the relevance of the Daybreak background is not in dispute. “The complaint is not that the [newspaper] reported on that background; it is that the account it gave of that background was materially incomplete…”;

f. the R625 000 payment related to fees earned across that entire preceding crisis and was paid five months after the quarter to which it related. The article’s account that she “abruptly left … where she controversially cashed out … before quitting with immediate effect, compresses this into a single opportunistic act”;

g. the newspaper’s response does not substantively defend the allegation that she usurped the CFO’s powers to enable a R625 000 payment to herself. Its argument that the forfeiture of other fees does not disprove the payment addresses a point she never raised “and does not address the falsity of the usurpation allegation specifically”;

h. no power was taken from Dali – a vacant Chief Executive power was formally, transparently and collectively reserved for her by a Board resolution. Nor was any power “given to a subordinate” – the resolution reserves the authority to her personally;

i. she did not ask Sunday World to recite every detail of Daybreak’s operational history. Her argument is that the single sentence of context necessary to prevent a false impression (that Daybreak’s industry-wide distress substantially predated her appointment) was lacking;

j. further contemporaneous correspondence shows that she personally sought external assistance to secure feed and support for the company’s breeder flock during this same period. This is “a further, direct governance intervention, not managerial absence”; and

k. the newspaper should have reported the criminal intimidation surrounding her resignation. “The article’s characterisation of [her] departure as leaving ‘under a dark cloud’ is not merely incomplete; on the documentary record, it inverts the true position. She submits that her resignation followed threats and intimidation directed at her and her family, escalating to an incident in which board members were held hostage. This was formally reported to the SAPS and confirmed in her media statement. Reporting that she left “under a dark cloud”, as if she were suspected of something untoward, is therefore misleading.

ANALYSIS

The first story

Ground 1: Misrepresentation of NSFAS appointment and uncorroborated anonymous sources; ‘past unanswered scandals’

  1. I find it quite astonishing that the newspaper, on the one hand, concedes that NSFAS was not required to advertise Segooa’s job, but still sees fit to report the allegation that she was appointed “without a transparent and competitive process” and “without a job advert issued”.
  2. The journalist knew that NSFAS was not obliged to advertise the post, as he quoted the entity as such. The point is quite simple: Why publish the views of an anonymous “insider”, if the latter had no legs to stand on?
  3. I do consider, however, the fact that the article does quote NSFAS in this regard as a mitigating factor – but still, I do not believe that it solves the problem.
  4. This is what I wrote in Decoding the code – sentence by sentence: “The use of the word ‘allege’ does not always save the media. It may well be that an allegation that a person stole money is defamatory as well. ‘Allege’ is an important word in journalism, but it does not safeguard you in all instances. Never publish an allegation that you know to be false.”
  5. The reporting of the view of “another insider” that Segooa’s appointment was “nothing short of the perpetuation of state capture”, is an extremely serious allegation – and yet it was published without any substantiation.
  6. The same goes for the statement of fact that there were “unanswered scandals” in her past. Such a statement cannot be left hanging in the air – readers need to be informed what those “scandals” were.
  7. I agree with Segooa that the reportage was uncorroborated, unverified, unfair and needlessly harmful of her dignity and reputation.

Ground 2: Misrepresentation of Segooa’s NSFAS governance role

  1. I do not agree with Segooa that the article misrepresents her role as an executive or head of the committee rather than an independent non-executive committee member.
  2. I shall return to the use of the word “controversial”.

Ground 3: Incorrect chronology of Daybreak foods tenure

  1. Segooa provides me with documentation that says she was appointed on 4 June 2024 as the chair of Daybreak’s Audit Commission, and as interim chair of its Board on 7 February 2025.
  2. I could find nothing in the article that distorts these facts.

Ground 4: Misleading presentation of earned Board fees, omission of fee forfeiture

  1. While the newspaper says it does not suggest that the payment of R625 000 was criminal, it also does not challenge Segooa’s argument that the payment in fact represented legitimate, contractually earned deferred Board fees for services rendered between January and March 2025, processed in line with Board resolutions.
  2. This means that there is no reason to believe that the payment was improper or controversial in any way.
  3. That being the case, I can find no justification for the statement that Segooa “reportedly” (who reported this, and when, and why?) usurped the powers of the then Daybreak CFO, Aubrey Dali, and gave the powers to a subordinate, which enabled the payment of R625 000 to her. The payment was not improper, and Segooa did not need to “usurp” powers for it to be made.
  4. If the article did not suggest that the payment of R625 000 could have been improper, but merely stated it as a fact, I do not believe that it would then have been necessary to report that Segooa forfeited nearly R2 million in Board fees.
  5. While the article did question the validity of the payment, though, it would have largely balanced it out if the amount of R2 million was mentioned. I agree with Segooa when she argues, “By omitting this context while framing the earned fees as an illegal payout, the article creates a false impression that personal remuneration was prioritized ahead of workers and operational welfare.”

Ground 5: Omission of macroeconomic context (avian flu) and Board governance interventions

  1. Segooa argues that the article unfairly attributes Daybreak Foods’ operational and animal welfare challenges to board mismanagement, omitting the impact of the 2023 avian influenza outbreak and the company’s resulting financial distress.
  2. I am not entertaining this part of her complaint, as she does not have the standing to complain on behalf of the Board.

Ground 6: Omission of criminal intimidation, whistleblower safety surrounding Segooa’s resignation

  1. The sentence in question reads, “Segooa abruptly left Daybreak under a dark cloud in My last year, where she controversially cashed out more than half a million rand in board fees before quitting with immediate effect.”
  2. The question is whether the article insinuates that her departure from Daybreak was an attempt to evade accountability or to flee operational distress, while there is documentary evidence that she resigned because of severe physical safety threats, armed intimidation, and explicit death threats directed at her and her family as a direct consequence of the anti-corruption and financial mismanagement investigations she had spearheaded against senior executive management.
  3. I note that these are presented as statements of fact, and not as allegations or the view of sources. That being the case, I would have expected Sunday World to provide me with solid proof that its reportage was justified. If there is such evidence, I certainly have not been provided with it.
  4. I find it strange that the newspaper does not reply to Segooa’s complaint about the statement in question, except for saying that the article does not say that the payment was criminal.
  5. That may be the case – and yet, it links Segooa’s “abrupt” departure from Daybreak with the statement that the payment was “controversial” and that she left “under a dark cloud”. The inference of something untoward, maybe even criminal, certainly is there.
  6. Also, the newspaper does not substantiate the following:

a. Segooa’s departure might have been “abrupt” – but not for the reason insinuated in this sentence;

b. Who said or intimated that this payment was “controversial”? and

c. How justified was it to state, as a fact and not as an allegation, that Segooa left Daybreak “under a dark cloud”?

94. In these circumstances, I need to agree with Segooa when she says, “Omitting these factual circumstances and painting a whistleblower facing extreme danger as feeling a ‘dark cloud’ fundamentally distorts and violates basic tenets of fair commentary and dignity.”

Ground 7: Misleading headline and cumulative effect

  1. The headline reads, “Controversial ex-Daybreak chair finds soft landing at NSFAS”. The questions are whether the headline reasonably reflects the content of the article and whether it is misleading.
  2. While the newspaper does defend itself on the use of the phrase “soft landing”, it does not explicitly address the headline.
  3. I cannot accept Kgosana’s defence in this regard. He merely says that “soft landing” is a fair description but then he fails to motivate why he says so.
  4. Also, he states that the article makes it clear that this was criticism from insiders, and not the newspaper’s view. That is only half of the truth. Yes, approximately in the middle of the article it says, “Insiders at NSFAS allege Segooa has since found herself a soft landing…” However, the main headline does not have such an attribution, and nor does the sub-heading in the middle of the article. In both instances, the “soft landing” is stated as a fact.

The second story

Ground 1: Golden handshake; improper payout

  1. The newspaper’s response to the payout of R625 000 is weak. Kgosana says that the article does not report that the payment was criminal. That is true, but there is more to say. The article describes this payout as “a subject of great controversy”. Who said that it was controversial? How could it be, when Segooa had earned that money? Having presented that allegation as fact, the journalist should at least have explained why he made that statement – otherwise, the implication that the payout was somehow untoward would linger. Without such justification that statement was unsubstantiated and unfair to Segooa.
  2. This is the point: If Segooa did not earn the R625 000, Sunday World would certainly have been justified to call the payment “controversial”. However, the newspaper did not challenge Segooa’s argument that she did earn that money.
  3. The same goes for the sub-headline in the body of the article, “Golden handshake controversy”. Readers should have been informed about who made such a claim and why the source(s) did so.
  4. Seen together, the reportage must have caused unnecessary harm to Segooa’s dignity and reputation.
  5. In the same vein, the headline that refers to Segooa as a “controversial Daybreak ex-chair” lacks the necessary substance.

Ground 2: Whistleblower death threats as a cause for resignation

  1. The article mentions that Segooa left Daybreak “with a cloud hanging over her”. I believe the journalist should have referred to the relevant context (read: the death threats) to give the necessary balance to his report.
  2. The newspaper admits that the journalist did not give Segooa a right of reply. To me, that is inconceivable. Journalism 101 dictates that a subject of critical reporting should be given a right of reply. There is no debate about that.

Ground 3: Job not advertised

  1. The story says, “In the recruitment process scope, Letsie wants Mathebula to provide clarity on whether or not the ARC vacancy was advertised before Segooa’s appointment.”
  2. The journalist did not state it as a fact that a public advertisement was necessary – he merely reported Letsie’s question to Mathebula. He was entitled to do so.

FINDING

The first article

Ground 1: Misrepresentation of NSFAS appointment and uncorroborated anonymous sources

  1. The complaint about the statement that Segooa was “one of those who have been appointed without a job advert issued” is upheld, as there is no justification for publishing it. This is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code which states, “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly.
  2. The statement that her appointment was “nothing short of the perpetuation of state capture” was uncorroborated, unverified, unfair and unnecessarily harmful to her dignity and reputation. These are in breach of the following clauses of the Press Code:

a. Clause 1.1;

b. Clause 1.7 – “The media shall verify the accuracy of doubtful information, if practicable; if not, this shall be stated”;

c. Clause 3.3.3 – “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation…”; and

d. Clause 11.2 – “The media shall avoid the use of anonymous sources unless there is no other way to deal with a story, and shall take care to corroborate such information.”

Ground 2: Misrepresentation of Segooa’s NSFAS governance role

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Ground 3: Incorrect chronology of daybreak foods tenure

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Ground 4: Misleading presentation of earned board Fees, omission of fee forfeiture

  1. There is no justification for the uncorroborated statement that Segooa “reportedly” usurped the powers of the then Daybreak CFO, Aubrey Dali, and gave those powers to a subordinate, which enabled the payment of R625 000 to her. This is in breach of Clause 1.1 and 3.3.3 of the Code.
  2. Having put her in a bad light, I believe that the neglect to mention that Segooa forfeited nearly R2 million creates an unfair impression that personal remuneration was prioritized ahead of workers and operational welfare. This is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the 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…”

Ground 5: Omission of macroeconomic context (avian flu) and board governance interventions

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Ground 6: Omission of criminal intimidation and whistleblower safety surrounding Segooa’s resignation

  1. The omission of Segooa’s personal reasons for her resignation (read: death threats) constitutes a breach of Clause 1.2 and 3.3.3 of the Press Code.
  2. Without any substantiation, the article links Segooa’s “abrupt” departure from Daybreak with the statement (of fact) that the payment of R625 000 was “controversial” and that she left “under a dark cloud”. The inference is that something untoward happened – while there is simply no evidence to support that. This is in breach of Clause 1.1 and 3.3.3 of the Code.

Ground 7: Misleading headline and cumulative effect

  1. The headline states Segooa’s “soft landing” as a fact, while the article notes that it was an allegation. This is in breach of Clause 10.1 of the Code which reads, “Headlines … shall not mislead the public and shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report…”

The second article

Ground 1: Golden handshake; improper payout

  1. The statement that the payment of R625 000 was “a subject of great controversy” was unsubstantiated and unfair to Segooa, as was the reference to “a golden handshake”. This is in breach of the following clauses of the Press Code:

a. Clause 1.1: “The media shall take care to report news … fairly”; and

b. Clause 1.2: “The media shall take care to present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation…”

119. Similarly, the reference to Segooa in the headline as a “controversial Daybreak ex-chair” is in breach of Clause 10.1 of the Code which reads, “Headlines … shall not mislead the public…”

Ground 2: Whistleblower death threats as cause for resignation

  1. The omission of Segooa’s motivation for her resignation from Daybreak was material (read: death threats), given that the article said that she had left Daybreak “with a cloud hanging over her”. This is in breach of Clause 1.1 and 1.2 of the Code.
  2. The neglect to give Segooa a proper right of reply is in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Code which says, “The media shall seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication…”

Ground 3: Unbalanced framing of parliamentary inquiries and statutory ARC role

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

SANCTION

  1. Sunday World is directed to unreservedly apologise to Segooa for:

a. quoting an unnamed source as saying that her appointment was a perpetuation of state capture;

b. quoting an anonymous source that she was appointed to a position that was not advertised;

c. falsely and unfairly characterising earned fees to the amount of R625 000 as a “golden handshake”;

d. unfairly characterising her as “controversial”;

e. stating, as fact, that she left Daybreak under a cloud;

f. omitting critical safety/whistleblower context;

g. stating, as fact, that she was involved in “unanswered scandals”;

h. unfairly and without substantiation reporting that she “reportedly” usurped the powers of the then Daybreak CFO and gave them to a subordinate, which enabled the payment of R625 000;

i. neglecting to also report that she forfeited nearly R2 million in Board fees, thereby creating a false impression that personal remuneration was prioritized ahead of workers and operational creates a false impression that personal remuneration was prioritized ahead of workers and operational welfare;

j. stating, as a fact, both in the headline and in a sub-headline in the article, that she had a “soft landing” at NSFAS;

k. not affording her a right of reply prior to publication; and

l. accumulatively causing huge, unnecessary harm to her dignity and reputation.

  1. The newspaper is also asked to:

a. give Segooa a right of reply in no more than 300 words, if she wishes to do so;

b. remove the word “disgraced” in the caption; and

c. amend its digital archives across all platforms accordingly.

  1. 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 “Segooa”;

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.

126. I shall ask Segooa for her comments on Sunday World’s proposed apology and correction before making a final decision on its wording.

IN CONLCUSION

  1. In my nearly twelve years of being a press ombud, whether part-time or full-time, I have never accused a journalist of being malicious. Given the above, I am tempted to do so now.
  2. However, I leave it up to the editor to make that decision.

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

4 November 2026

[1] National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS.

[2] Clause 11.2 reads, “The media shall avoid the use of anonymous sources unless there is no other way to deal with a story, and shall take care to corroborate such information.”

[3] Clause 1.1: “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”;

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

[5] Clause 3.3.1: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation, which may be overridden only if it is in the public interest and if the facts reported are true or substantially true.”

[6] Clause 6: “The media may strongly advocate their own views on controversial topics, provided that they clearly distinguish between fact and opinion, and not misrepresent or suppress or distort relevant facts.”

[7] Clause 7.2: “Comment or criticism is protected even if it is extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it is without malice, is on a matter of public interest, has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true, and is presented in a manner that it appears clearly to be comment.”

[8] Clause 10.1 reads: “Headlines … shall not mislead the public and shall give a reasonable reflection of the content of the report…”

[9] Clause 3.3.2 of the Code states: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation, which may be overridden only if it is in the public interest and if the reportage amounts to protected comment based on facts that are adequately referred to and that are either true or reasonably true.”

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

Related Posts