National Library of South Africa vs News24

Press Ombud: Tyrone August

6 November 2026

Finding: Complaint 000781

 Article:

Author: Azarrah Karrim

Date of publication: 16 August 2026

Publication: News24

Headline:

Materialistic Majestic: How companies tried to ‘game’ a National Library tender

https://www.news24.com/investigations/materialistic-majestic-how-companies-tried-to-game-a-national-library-tender-20260815-1029

Particulars

This finding is based on a written complaint on behalf of National Library of South Africa (NLSA) CEO Mr Ralph Links by Mr Ronald Magopane, NLSA Manager: Risk monitoring & compliance; a written response on behalf of News24 by journalist Ms Azarrah Karrim, Head of Investigations Mr Pieter du Toit and Public Editor Dr George Claassen; and a written reply by Mr Magopane. Dr Claaasen subsequently responded by email to a specific point in the NLSA’s reply, followed by an email by Mr Magopane.[1]

Complaint

The complainant submits that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7 and 1.9 of the Press Code.

1. Summary of article

1.1. According to the article, News24 has evidence that shows that at least three of the companies that bid for the National Library of South Africa’s (NLSA) new integrated library management system are connected. This reportedly appears to be a coordinated attempt to manipulate the tender process.

1.1.1. Three of the six companies that submitted bids appear to share the same owners and, for a while, the same executive director. The companies did not disclose this information and Universal Knowledge Systems (UKS) was awarded the contract.

1.1.2. However, the tender was cancelled after claims that the NLSA’s chief financial officer (CFO), Seeiso Tlali, “pushed for the appointment” of a specific bidder. It was readvertised and, as News24 understands, the tender has not yet been awarded.

1.2. NLSA board chairperson Bernado Maralack submitted a report to the Department

of Sport, Arts and Culture (DSAC) in June 2026 and claimed that the NLSA did not find any irregularities in the process. According to his report, the tender report “explicitly states that the indicators of possible bid rigging were not evident”.

1.2.1. News24 reports that its investigation suggests otherwise and said that, despite Maralack’s claims, the NLSA did not conduct a thorough investigation into the bidding process.

1.2.2. According to News24, the first advertisement for the “terms of reference/specifications” for the procurement of an integrated library management system went out in October 2025. This system would automate services such as archiving and tracking of material.

1.3. Six companies submitted bids: Anti Ballistic, Christilaka Trading and Projects, Materialistic Majestic, Ingwete Wireless, Sabinet Online and UKS.

1.3.1. An employment contract seen by News24 reportedly revealed a direct relationship between Anti Ballistic, Christilaka and Materialistic Majestic. They reportedly appointed a common executive director, Rearabetse Pitso, with effect from 23 June 2025.

1.3.2. The employment contract online states: “The appointment is made with the full authority and consent of the common controlling shareholder and/or ultimate beneficial owner of the group companies.” According to the News24 article, this means the companies share a single common shareholder or ultimate beneficial owner.

1.4. A tender proposal for a separate NLSA contract, dated 30 June 2025, reportedly gave a clue about the identity of these owners. Anti Ballistic’s Central Supplier Database (CSD) profile was included in the proposal and, according to this document, the company’s directors are Musa Deon Shivambu and Kamogelo Gerald Baloyi, who are also the company’s owners.

1.4.1. According to the News24 article, this suggests that they own Christilaka and Materialistic Majestic, too, since they are the “common controlling shareholder and/or ultimate beneficial owner of the group companies”.

1.4.2. Pitso told News24 she worked with these companies for only a few months (until late 2025). According to News24, her brief stint as executive director revealed that the three companies were related.

1.4.3. However, Shivambu told News24 that he does not know how Anti Ballistic’s name ended up on the employment contract. He said the company was not in partnership with anyone and has “zero association” with Pitso.

1.5. According to News24, its investigation found that the companies began bidding for contracts with the NLSA after Sport, Arts and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie appointed a new board in 2025.

1.5.1. The article reports that Materialistic Majestic was awarded contracts for internal audit, risk and compliance management software, among other things. Anti Ballistic and Christilaka have not been awarded any NLSA contracts but have submitted bids for other tenders.

1.6. News24 questioned the NLSA about its investigation, “potential bid manipulation, its procurement process and the bidding history of the companies”. However, there was reportedly no response to these questions.

1.6.1. Hlengiwe Nhleko, NLSA senior manager for people and culture, said it was unable to comment on the tender information as the tender was still under review. The directors of Materialistic Majestic and Christilaka did not respond to requests for comment.

1.7. Anti Ballistic reportedly began submitting multiple bids to the NLSA in 2025 and has since earned more than R12 million from the NLSA through five contracts – “seemingly all awarded on the same day, 27 March 2026”.

1.7.1. After the tender for the new library management system was cancelled, it was readvertised on 12 May 2026 and Anti Ballistic again submitted a bid.

1.8. UKS submitted a bid for “a continuing progressive development programme for emerging library leaders on ICT [Information and Communication Technology] skills”. It was reportedly the only bidder and won the award.

1.8.1. UKS director Neesha Nanoolal says the company was not aware that it was the only bidder in that process.

1.9. According to News24, the connections among three of the companies “raise red flags for collusive tendering or bid rigging” and invite questions about why they were not disqualified from bidding for the readvertised tender.

1.9.1. Although Anti Ballistic was not awarded the contract, it reports, its presence in the second tender suggests that the NLSA did not properly investigate problems in the first process before readvertising.

1.10. Nanoolal said that UKS was “unaware” of the status of the other bidders. She said the company and its directors do not have any relationship with “the above-mentioned individuals or associated companies”. She said UKS relied solely on its track record as a market leader in this sector.

1.11. Anti Ballistic, Christilaka and Materialistic Majestic are all based in Lephalale, Limpopo. They do not have websites or any online presence and reportedly also have “little to no operational footprint or specialisation – especially not in library or software development services”.

1.11.1. According to Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) records, Anti Ballistic was registered on 24 March 2025 and qualified for a BEE certificate for exempted micro enterprises on the same day.

1.11.2. Christilaka previously supplied mining-related materials to Exxaro and submitted a tender proposal to the company for coal transportation.

1.12. News24 reports that, despite the flaws in the second process, the NLSA proceeded with the award even though it was not clear how it could have conducted a proper value and price comparison in either round.

1.12.1. According to Professor Alex van den Heever of the Wits School of Governance, “bid rigging occurs when competing bidders – who are supposed to be independent of each other – coordinate their bids”.

1.12.2. Based on News24’s evidence, he said there were sufficient grounds to raise serious doubts about the NLSA’s investigation. He said a review limited to procedural compliance would have been inadequate and would have required “the integrity of the entire SCM (supply chain management) process”.

1.12.3. Van den Heever added that, although Anti Ballistic did not win the contract, its inclusion in the second tender process was still of concern. He believes an investigation was warranted into “the conduct of the entire tender process – both the NLSA and the bidders”.

2. Arguments

National Library of South Africa

2.1. Firstly, the complainant states that, based on information obtained by the publication, the article claims that the NLSA did not carry out due diligence in terms of its procurement processes.

2.1.1. It refers, among others, to the following sentences in the article and submits that they are either “not applicable” or incorrect:

• “Three of the six companies that submitted bids – one named Materialistic Majestic – appeared to share the same owners and, for a time, the same executive director, but did not disclose this.”
• “An employment contract seen by News24 reveals a direct relationship between Anti Ballistic, Christilaka and Materialistic Majestic.”
• “The connections among the three companies, however, raise red flags for collusive tendering or bid rigging and raise questions about why they were not disqualified.”

2.1.2. The NLSA states that it is a state organ and that it relies solely on information maintained by National Treasury on the CSD, where suppliers register who want to provide goods and services to government.

2.1.3. It points out that the NLSA does not maintain its own supplier database and that the CDS is the single source of supplier information for state organs. It says this database provides accurate, up-to-date and verified supplier information to state organs.

2.1.4. Based on the CDS registration reports, it states that Christilaka is based in Lephalale and is owned by Reneilwe Christina Laka; Anti Ballistic is based in Marapong and is owned on an equal basis by Shivambu and Balo[y]i; and Materialistic Majestic is based on Farm Enrenbreitsetin and is owned by No[n]kululeko Amanda Sibiya.

2.2. Secondly, the complainant submits that the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) forms required from bidders as well as other information subsequently required as part of the bid evaluation do not include the employment contract of an executive director. As a result, it says, the NLSA cannot prejudice a prospective supplier based on a criterion that was not stipulated as part of the bid evaluation process.

2.2.1. It states that prospective bidders were disqualified on the basis of an evaluation specified in the tender documents. Any deviation from the bid evaluation criteria set out in the tender documents will contravene Treasury regulations and the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act.

2.2.2. Furthermore, the complainant says that the three prospective suppliers mentioned in the article do not appear on National Treasury’s list of prohibited suppliers.

2.2.3. The NLSA later adds that the employment contract allegedly seen by News24 is an unsigned or unverified document that the NLSA had not requested as part of the evaluation criteria. Yet, it says, the publication relied on it to make damaging allegations.

2.3. Thirdly, the complainant goes on to note that it is guided by Treasury regulations under the Public Finance Management Act which state that organs of state must consider certain possible indicators of “bid rigging” during the evaluation and adjudication stages before an award is made.  It provides a brief summary of these indicators.

2.4. Fourthly, the complainant states that no award was made to UKS for the library management system that was subsequently cancelled. It adds that the cancellation of this bid was recommended by Tlali in his capacity as Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) chair and approved by the CEO, Ralph Links, to ensure that the NLSA was protected from any possible litigation after the internal audit, audit committee and board had looked at it.

2.5. Fifthly, the complainant maintains that Materialistic Majestic was never awarded a bid for the procurement of internal audit, risk and compliance management software.

2.5.1. The NLSA then lists the companies that submitted bids, which does not include Materialistic Majestic. It asks why it would award a bid to a supplier that did not submit a bid.

2.6. Lastly, the complainant says News24 is obliged to comply with the Press Code. Because of its failure to do so, it says, the NLSA suffered reputational damage and “has been opened up for possible litigations from prospective suppliers and individuals mentioned based on false information”.

News24

2.7. The respondent regards the complaint as an attempt to challenge the findings of its investigation through the Press Ombud rather than by engagement with News24 during the reporting process. The publication says it sent extensive questions and supporting documents to the NLSA before publication, but it declined to comment.

2.7.1. News24 argues that it is spurious to now use “the Press Council process” to put its version on record when the NLSA chose not to exercise its right of reply when it was given the opportunity.

2.7.2. The publication then responds to each of the NLSA’s complaints.[2]

2.8. The respondent first addresses the NLSA’s submission that the CSD is the single source of verified supplier information and that the article’s claim that the three companies share common ownership is incorrect.

2.8.1. News24 says it did not rely solely on CSD records to establish the connection between the three companies, but consulted a CSD report, CIPC documents, bid documents related to a separate NLSA bid and an employment contract obtained from a public online source.

2.8.2. It says the employment contract names Anti Ballistic, Christilaka and Materialistic Majestic as “group companies” sharing a “common controlling shareholder and/or ultimate beneficial owner”. News24 also contacted Pitso, who confirmed that she had served as executive director of the three companies for a time.

2.8.3. The publication states that the NLSA’s CSD records show the registered shareholders of each company and says that registered shareholders and ultimate beneficial owners are not necessarily the same.

2.8.4. It points out that the employment contract language refers to “common controlling shareholder and/or ultimate beneficial owner”. It says this term “may encompass arrangements beyond registered shareholding”.

2.8.5. News24 maintains that the CSD records do not disprove the language used in the contract. Instead, it says, these records show that “the registered shareholding structure differs from what the contract language suggests” and submits that both can be true simultaneously.

2.8.6. It further says that the article presents the shared ownership as an inference based on the language in the employment contract – not as an established fact confirmed by CSD records. For this reason, the article uses the words “appeared to share” and “indicates”.

2.8.7. News24 notes that the CSD profile for Anti Ballistic – which shows Shivambu and Baloyi as shareholders – was obtained from the company’s own bid to the NLSA for a separate tender. It says these documents are publicly available online.

2.8.8. The publication adds that the NLSA could have provided the CSD records during the right-of-reply process, but chose not to.

2.9. Secondly, the respondent addresses the NLSA argument that the employment contract is unsigned and unverified. News24 states that the article disclosed that the contract was unsigned. Furthermore, it denies that the contract was not verified and says it conducted a verification exercise through Pitso.

2.9.1 News24 also responds to the NLSA complaint that the contract was not part of the bid evaluation process and that it could therefore not be used to make findings against the bidders.

2.9.2. The publication says the article did not state that the NLSA was legally required to disqualify the bidders. It says that what it did was report that the connections between the three companies raise red flags for “collusive tendering” – a matter of legitimate public interest.

2.9.3. News24 notes that the article also referred to a report that Maralack drafted to the DSAC in which he attempted to clear the first tender process and stated that an internal investigation did not find indicators of possible bid rigging.

2.9.4. The publication points out that it questioned this based on documents that were publicly available. It observes that the employment contract exists and that its language connects the three companies. It adds that Pitso confirmed the substance of the contract.

2.9.5. News24 says it was therefore entitled to report these facts regardless of whether the contract formed part of the NLSA’s evaluation criteria.

2.10. Thirdly, the respondent turns to the NLSA’s claim that UKS was not awarded the library management system contract and that Tlali recommended that the bid be cancelled.

2.10.1. News24 maintains that it was told by sources that UKS was awarded the first contract and says that this is consistent with the NLSA’s own report to the DSAC drafted by Maralack, which states that UKS was the recommended bidder in the first process.

2.10.2. News24 adds that the article includes Nanoolal’s comment that UKS had not been informed that it was awarded a contract in either tender process. It states that the publication therefore presented all the information it obtained.

2.11. Fourthly, the respondent rejects the NLSA’s claim that Materialistic Majestic was never awarded a contract for internal audit, risk and compliance management software. It also takes issue with the list of 14 bidders provided by the NLSA (which omits Materialistic Majestic).

2.11.1. News24 states that it has a screenshot that shows that Materialistic Majestic was awarded this contract. It refers to the screenshot – which it provides as an attachment in its response – as a primary source document.

2.11.2. The publication submits that the NLSA’s list of bidders is “a different version” and argues that it could have been provided during the right-of-reply process. It contends that the NLSA’s “bare denial, accompanied by a list provided more than a month after publication, does not establish that the article is inaccurate when News24 has documentary evidence supporting its reporting”.

2.12. Fifthly, in response to the NLSA claim that it applied Treasury bid rigging indicators but did not find any match, the respondent notes that the article did not state that the NLSA failed to apply these indicators, but questioned how thoroughly it investigated the process.

2.12.1. News24 says it reported that the three companies in question are all based in Lephalale and that this is confirmed by CSD records. It adds that the article reported that these companies share a common executive director; this was established by the employment contract and confirmed by Pitso.

2.12.2. The publication also submits that the Treasury indicator relating to bidders being “in the same group” directly relates to the language in the employment contract referring to “group companies”.

2.12.3. Furthermore, the publication argues, the evidence in the article – namely,

the employment contract, the CSD profile and the lack of an online presence by the three companies – raises valid questions about the NLSA’s investigation. It submits that the article was thus entitled to raise these questions in the public interest.

2.13. Lastly, the respondent addresses the NLSA claim that the article caused reputational damage and exposed it to litigation risk based on false information. News24 dismisses the claim of litigation risk from prospective suppliers as speculative.

2.13.1. It states that the article reported on “documentary evidence and a confirmed interview”. If suppliers have any concerns, it argues, these arise from the evidence – not from News24 reporting on them.

2.13.2. The publication reiterates that the article is in the public interest since the NLSA is a national institution that serves the public. It goes on to quote from the preamble of the Press Code that “[t]he media’s work is guided at all times by the public interest, understood to describe information of legitimate interest or importance to citizens”.

2.13.3. News24 maintains that its article is in the public interest as set out by the Press Code and submits that the complaint should therefore be dismissed.

National Library of South Africa

2.14. The complainant submits that the role of the Press Ombud is designed specifically to ensure that news is balanced, fair and accurate. It states that findings based on falsehood, malice and harm cannot remain unchallenged in the name of “public interest”.

2.14.1. While it is News24’s right to view the complaint as spurious, it says, the publication also has a responsibility to respect the views of those who think their rights have been trampled on “as enshrined in the South African Constitution and Bill of Rights”.

2.15. Firstly, regarding News24’s report on the shared ownership of three of the companies, the complainant submits that the response of the publication is “knotted in contradictions”.[3] It says News24 first claims that it relied on CSD information which is a publicly available, but then argues that the NLSA should have provided the information.

2.15.1. The NLSA reiterates that the NLSA is a public institution and that it relies solely on the CSD and National Treasury guidelines to evaluate and adjudicate tenders and bids. If it does not follow those prescripts, it says, the NLSA will be found wanting.

2.15.2. It states that the NLSA is not an investigative body and is not required to investigate prospective suppliers. It says its role is to ensure that all suppliers are treated equally in line with the specifications.

2.16. Secondly, regarding the employment contract, the NLSA repeats that it is a public institution and is obliged to rely on the CSD and National Treasury guidelines when it evaluates and adjudicates tenders and bids.

2.16.1. It again states that it is not an investigative body and that it is not required to investigate prospective suppliers, “but to ensure that all suppliers are treated equally without prejudice” (emphasis in the original).

2.17. Thirdly, the NLSA states that there is a clear distinction between “award” and “recommended/preferred” in SCM processes.

2.17.1. It quotes the National Treasury as follows: “An award or contract award is the final stage of the supply chain management process where a tender or quotation is formally allocated to the winning bidder after completing administrative, functional, price and preference evaluations.”

2.17.2. On the other hand, it says, National Treasury refers to a recommended or preferred bidder as follows: “Supplier selected by a bid evaluation or adjudication committee as having submitted the highest scoring or most compliant offer.”

2.17.3. It reiterates that, based on the above, no award was made to UKS and again says that Tlali did not advocate a particular supplier.

2.17.4. The complainant adds that the cancellation notice is a public document that is available on the Treasury and NLSA websites. In light of this, it argues, News24 did not conduct due diligence.

2.17.5. The NLSA further maintains that publications bear a legal and ethical responsibility for what they publish, “even if the underlying falsehoods originated from a source”. It argues that a publication cannot use the defence that it merely relied on a source.

2.17.6. The NLSA argues that a publication should be held accountable if it publishes false information that causes harm.

2.18. Fourthly, the complainant submits that there is a fundamental ethical and legal obligation on publications to verify facts before publication. It regards relying on a screenshot as the primary source of information that Materialistic Majestic was awarded a contract for internal audit, risk and compliance management software as “mind boggling”.

2.18.1. The NLSA further claims that the screenshot appears to be an altered document: “The reference number on the screen shot is from one procurement of internal audit and risk software, it is then merged (for whatever reasons) to other awards made with different procurement and reference numbers with the sole purpose to make it look as one.”

2.18.2. In support of its claim, the NLSA provides information that it says is available to the public since Treasury requires entities to publicise awards on their website and in Treasury submissions.

2.18.3. It submits that News24’s insistence on standing by false information shows its lack of responsibility in upholding its ethical and legal obligation to verify facts. It claims this proves that the intention of the publication was to cause harm to individuals and the NLSA “at whatever cost”.

2.19. Fifthly, the complainant submits that it is the responsibility of the publication to ensure that news is reported without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts, distortion, exaggeration, misrepresentation or summarisation and that any opinion, allegation or rumours must be presented as such.

2.19.1. The NLSA maintains that it cannot be expected to evaluate or adjudicate any bids based on information that is not available at the time or that was never requested as part of the evaluation process. It again states that it applies and is guided by Treasury laws, regulations and instructions.

2.19.2. The NLSA claims that the article insinuates that it did not follow due process or diligence without informing readers about Treasury guidelines. Instead, it says, News24 relies on false information provided to the publication.

2.20. Finally, the complainant submits that reporting on “public interest” does not give the publication an unconditional right to report “recklessly and negligently”. The NLSA says that information published must also be accurate, truthful, fairly presented and not mislead the public.

2.20.1. It again maintains that the article is based on false information and that it caused direct harm to the institution and individuals mentioned. It says a prospective supplier has made legal presentation that has been served on the NLSA. It says another prospective supplier was unable to deliver based on the reputational damage it has suffered.

2.20.2. The complainant claims it has suffered irreparable harm because it depends solely on grant allocations from government and non-profit organisations to deliver on its mandate. Furthermore, it says, the individuals mentioned will always carry this burden and that it may affect their future employment prospects.

News24

2.21. The respondent subsequently replied specifically to the claim in the complainant’s rejoinder that the screenshot that it provided had been altered (see point 2.18.1). It says this claim is outrageous and dismisses it as erroneous and misleading.

2.21.1. In support of its response, News24 provided the website address from which the image was taken: https://tenderbulletins.co.za/tender-award/tender-award-readvertisement-of-appointment-of-a-service-provider-for-the-procurement-of-internal-audit-risk-and-compliance-management-software-tool-including-support-bid-no-nlsa-13-2025-2026/

National Library of South Africa

2.22. The complainant responded by providing the website address of its portal for tenders and procurement: https://www.nlsa.ac.za/tenders-and-procurement/

3. Discussion

3.1. The complainant refers to six complaints in its submission. However, the NLSA does not state which specific clause or clauses of the Press Code are allegedly breached in each of its complaints. Because of this omission, I have attempted to identify the relevant clause or clauses wherever possible.

3.1.1. The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.9 is addressed adequately in relation to the clauses I have identified. This clause will therefore not be considered separately.

3.2. The main complaint relates to the three sentences quoted under point 2.1.1, which essentially question why three bidders who appeared to share the same owners and, at one time, the same executive director were not disqualified from submitting bids for an NLSA tender.

3.2.1. The NLSA’s defence is that, as a state organ, it is obliged to rely on National Treasury’s CSD for information on suppliers and that it does not conduct its own investigation into the credentials of potential suppliers.

3.2.2. As the CSD declares on its website, it “will serve as the single source of key supplier information for organs of state … providing consolidated, accurate, up-to-date, complete and verified supplier information to procuring organs of state”.[4]

3.2.3. It is therefore understandable that the NLSA is concerned that its bid adjudication process is called into question whereas it relies on the CSD for information on potential suppliers.

3.2.4. On the other hand, News24 is perfectly entitled to raise questions about the bidding process on the basis of the outcome of its inquiry, which included various efforts to verify the information at its disposal in line with Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.

3.2.5. It did not confine its investigation to the CSD: it also consulted a CSD report, CIPC documents, bid documents related to a separate NLSA bid and an employment contract (point 2.8.1).

3.2.6. In addition, the publication obtained confirmation from Pitso that she had served as executive director of Christilaka, Anti Ballistic and Materialistic Majestic at one stage (point 2.8.2).

3.2.7. News24 can surely not be rebuked for extending its investigation as widely as possible. In fact, it should be commended for doing so. After all, the essence of good investigative journalism is the examination of the subject in question as thoroughly as possible.

3.2.8. The publication also responds to the NLSA’s submission that, according to the CSD registration reports, the three companies in question have different owners and are based in different parts of Limpopo (point 2.1.4).

3.2.9. News24 points out that the employment contract that is available online names Anti Ballistic, Christilaka and Materialistic Majestic as “group companies” that share a “common controlling shareholder and/or ultimate beneficial owner” (point 2.8.2).[5]

3.2.10. On the basis of this information, News24 was therefore entitled to raise questions about the inclusion of the three companies in the NLSA bidding process.

3.2.11. Moreover, it was careful to report in the article that the three companies “appeared to share the same owners”. It did not present this as a confirmed fact; it therefore met the requirement of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code by clearly presenting an allegation or supposition as such.

3.2.12. In light of the above, there are no grounds to find that the article is in breach of the Press Code.

3.3. The complainant further submits that it cannot prejudice a prospective supplier on the basis of the employment contract of an executive director since such information was not a criterion of the bid evaluation process. Presumably the NLSA regards this as a misrepresentation of the facts in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.3.1. However, even if information about the employment contract of an executive director was not a criterion of the bid evaluation process, the point remains that Pitso simultaneously held this position at three companies at one time. It is this aspect that, according to the article, raises questions about how thoroughly the NLSA conducted its internal investigation into possible bid rigging.

3.3.2. The article says that the employment contract points to “the connections among the three companies”. It is for this reason that the article suggests that the links between the three companies “raise red flags for collusive tendering or bid rigging”.

3.3.3. Furthermore, according to the employment contract,“[t]he appointment is made with the full authority and consent of the common controlling shareholder and/or ultimate beneficial owner of the group companies”. News24 therefore rightly reports that this suggests that the companies share a single common shareholder or ultimate beneficial owner.

3.3.4. Based on this information, it is reasonable for the article to suggest that the contents of the employment contract provide sufficient grounds to question the inclusion of the three companies in the NLSA bid – regardless of whether or not the contract of the executive director was a criterion for the bid evaluation process.

3.3.5. This aspect of the article is therefore not in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.3.6. Nor is there sufficient merit in the NLSA’s argument that Pitso’s employment contract was not verified. News24’s approach to her for comment was part of its efforts to verify the contract, in line with the requirements of Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.

3.3.7. Pitso confirmed the substance of the employment contract when News24 contacted her. In fact, the publication established during the course of its investigation that it was Pitso who had uploaded the contract online.

3.3.8. In light of the above information, these aspects of the article are not in breach of Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.

3.4. The respondent does not take issue with the NLSA’s claim that it is guided by Treasury regulations and that these oblige them to consider possible indicators of “bid rigging” during the evaluation and adjudication stages before it makes an award (point 2.3). However, News24 questions how thoroughly the NLSA applied these indicators.

3.4.1. It points out that all three companies are based in Limpopo and that, for a while, they all shared the same executive director. In addition, the article reports that they “have no websites or online presence, and have little to no operational footprint or specialisation – especially not in library or software development services”.

3.4.2. In view of the above, there was sufficient cause for News24 to report in the article that its investigation “suggests … that, despite Maralack’s claims, the NLSA did not conduct a thorough investigation into the process”.

3.4.3. It is important to take note of the use of the word “suggests” in this sentence. The article does not present this aspect of its report as an established fact; it is presented as a supposition. Accordingly, there is no breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code.

3.4.4. Furthermore, News24 cannot be faulted for drawing attention to these aspects. It is indisputably in the public interest to do so. After all, the NLSA is a public entity and is mandated by the National Library of South Africa Act to collect and preserve published documents and to make these accessible to the public.[6]

3.5. There is insufficient merit in the NLSA’s complaint that the News24 article inaccurately reported that UKS was awarded the contract for the new integrated library management system (point 2.4).

3.5.1. The article does initially report that UKS was “awarded the contract”. News24 explains in its response to the complaint that this was based on information from its sources and on Maralack’s report to the DSAC which states that UKS was the recommended bidder (point 2.10.1).

3.5.2. However, News24 also quotes Nanoolal’s comment further on in the article that the company had not been notified that it had been awarded the contract for the new library management system.

3.5.3. As I pointed out recently in Lebelo and Afronex vs News24, the Press Code does not prescribe how an article should be structured.[7] That is an editorial decision.

3.5.4. The only requirement of the Press Code that is relevant in this regard is Clause 1.2, which states that there should not be any material omission of information. Based on this consideration, the inclusion of UKS’s response sufficiently complies with the Press Code.

3.5.5. In any event, an article must be read as a whole in order to fully understand the issue or issues at hand.

3.5.6. There is also no merit in the NLSA’s complaint that News24 did not do due diligence on the grounds that the cancellation notice is a public document and is available on the Treasury and NLSA websites.

3.5.7. The News24 article does report that the tender was cancelled and that it was subsequently readvertised. As such, there is no breach of Clause 1.7 regarding this aspect of the complaint.

3.5.8. The complainant further denies that the tender was cancelled because Tlali favoured a specific bidder for this contract (point 2.17.3).

3.5.9. News24 does not elaborate on this allegation in the article and it does not provide any indication either about the source of the allegation. The article simply reports that “the tender was cancelled after claims that [Tlali] ‘pushed for the appointment’ of a specific bidder”.

3.5.10. Nor is there any indication – neither in the article nor in its response to the complaint – that News24 made any attempt to verify this allegation. Its failure to do so is serious in view of the fact that Tlali’s support for a particular bidder is reported as being the reason why the tender for the new library management system was cancelled.

3.5.11. This aspect of the article is therefore in breach of Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.

3.6. The complainant maintains that Materialistic Majestic was not awarded a bid for the procurement of internal audit, risk and compliance management software and says this company was not even on the NLSA’s list of companies that submitted bids (points 2.5 and 2.5.1).

3.6.1. In response to this claim, News24 provides a screenshot from the website of Tender Bulletins, a tender notification service whose database includes tenders issued by the South African Government, provincial governments, municipalities and state-owned enterprises (point 2.21.1). According to this website, Materialistic Majestic was one of five successful bidders.

3.6.2. Even though Tender Bulletins is not a government website, there was no obvious reason to doubt its information. In line with Clause 1.3 of the Press Code, News24 therefore published “what may reasonably be true as fact”.

3.6.3. And while it is unclear why the publication did not consult the NLSA’s website directly to establish the name of the company that was awarded the bid, there are no grounds to ascribe improper motives to what may be no more than an unintentional mistake.

3.6.4. News24 published in good faith that Materialistic Majestic successfully bid for the procurement of internal audit, risk and compliance management software on the basis of the information on the Tender Bulletins website.

3.6.5. As such, this aspect of the article is deemed not to be in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.

3.7. Lastly, the complainant submits that it suffered reputational harm because the publication did not adhere to the Press Code and cites two examples in support of this claim.

3.7.1. In the one instance, the NLSA claims that a prospective supplier was unable to deliver based on the reputational damage it had suffered. Assessing the validity of this claim falls outside the domain and expertise of the Press Ombud’s office. The role of this office is confined to ensuring that Press Council members adhere to the Press Code.

3.7.2. In the second example, the NLSA claims that a company has made legal presentation to the NLSA. This matter, too, falls outside the ambit of the Press Ombud office and is best left to the legal process that the company in question has embarked on.

3.7.3. Furthermore, as stated earlier, News24’s concerns about the bids in question were raised in the public interest. The fact of the matter is that the NLSA is an entity set up by Government to serve the South African public. As such, the publication was entitled to draw attention to matters which it deems to be of concern in the NLSA bids.

4. Findings

Complaint one: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 is dismissed for the reasons explained in points 3.2.8 to 3.2.12 of my Discussion.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.7 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.2.4 to 3.2.7 of my Discussion.

Complaint two: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.3.1 to 3.3.5 of my Discussion.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.7 is dismissed for the reasons identified in points 3.3.6 to 3.3.8 of my Discussion.

Complaint three: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.4 to 3.4.4 of my Discussion.

Complaint four: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is dismissed for the reasons explained in points 3.5 to 3.5.5 of my Discussion.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.7 is dismissed with regard to one aspect for the reasons outlined in points 3.5.6 and 3.5.7 of my Discussion.

However, the complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.7 is upheld in relation to another aspect for the reasons set out in points 3.5.8 to 3.5.11 of my Discussion.

Complaint five: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.6.1 to 3.6.5 of my Discussion.

Complaint six: The complaint that the NLSA suffered reputational harm is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.7.1 to 3.7.3 of my Discussion.

Firstly, News24 is required to publish an apology to Mr Tlali for breaching Clause 1.7 by reporting without any substantiation that he favoured a specific bidder for the NLSA’s new integrated library management system contract.

Secondly, the apology should be approved by me prior to publication and should be published with a headline including the words “apology” and “Tlali”.

Thirdly, the respondent should update the article by amending the statement that Tlali favoured a specific bidder for the NLSA’s library management system contract and publish a note under the headline: “NOTE: The article has been updated. See Editor’s Note below, including an apology to Mr Tlali.” The Editor’s Note should state when and how the article has been updated and should include the full apology as directed above.

Fourthly, the update should be approved by me prior to publication.

The above should:

• be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed or, in the event of such an application, after that ruling;
• be published on News24’s landing page for 24 hours as well as on all its platforms where the article was published;
• be published on the landing page with a link to the original article;
• refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
• end with the sentence, “Visit presscouncil.org.zafor the full finding”; and
• be published with the logo of the Press Council.

Appeals procedure

The Complaints Procedure stipulates that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at khanyim@presscouncilsa.org.za

Tyrone August

Press Ombudsman

6 November 2026

[1] See points 21 and 22.

[2] The order in which News24 does so differs slightly from that used by the complainant.

[3] The NLSA rejoinder follows the order used by News24 in its response to the complaints.

[4] https://secure.csd.gov.za

[5] According to the CIPC, beneficial ownership of a company means an individual who, directly or indirectly, ultimately owns that company or exercises effective control over that company. See https://www.cipc.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/USER-GUIDELINES-BO-LEGISLATIVE-REQUIREMENTS_Aug-23.pdf

[6] https://www.nlsa.ac.za/history/

[7] https://presscouncilsa.org.za/2026/10/09/lebelo-and-afronex-vs-news24-2/