Menu
Ruling (Leave to Appeal)

Financial Mail vs Ms Bojane Segooa

, ,

BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA

In the matter between

Financial Mail Group (Pty) Ltd                                                          Applicant

and

Ms Bojane Segooa                                                                      Respondent

Matter no: PCSA000734

___________________________________________________________________

DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

___________________________________________________________________

  1. Financial Mail Group (Pty) Ltd (applicant) applies for leave to appeal the Ruling of the Acting Press Ombud dated 28 August 2026. The Ruling was on a complaint that was lodged by Ms Bojane Segooa (respondent) following an article published by the applicant on 23 July 2026, with the headline “A good week for Bojane Segooa – The former Daybreak board chair stepped smoothly into a new job with student funding body NSFAS.”
  2. In his Ruling, the Acting Press Ombud dismissed a number of complaints based on the article, but upheld the complaint relating to a caption to the respondent’s picture, which read: “Bojane Segooa, Chair of Daybreak’s five-person board of directors, resigned with immediate effect, leaving fellow board members dumbstruck.” As the application relates only to this finding, I will make no reference to the other statements that were made and complained about. The application also sought leave to appeal the sanction imposed. For the application to succeed, the applicant must show reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel.
  3. The Ruling pointed out that the crux of the respondent’s complaint was not about the accuracy of the statements, but about whether or not the column had taken fair account of all material facts. She argued for example that the text conveyed that, in resigning, she irresponsibly abandoned a failing company; that she was responsible for the company’s failure, and that she enriched herself by taking the R625,000.00 payment. The applicant’s response was amongst others, that the text appeared in a weekly diary column recognised by readers as comment and that it was presented in a manner that clearly appeared to be so. Turning to the caption, the applicant argued that the text did not suggest any improper conduct on the respondent, and that the word “dumbstruck” described her colleagues’ presumed reaction to a sudden departure and did not comment on her reasons for leaving. I agree with the Ruling’s dismissal of this argument raised by the applicant. If account is taken of the fact that the respondent’s reasons included the fact that she and other members of the board had threats issued against them, the latter would not have been “dumbstruck” by the respondent’s resignation, as she indeed did explain. But even more importantly and decisive, is the fact that the applicant itself says that the word “dumbstruck” described her colleagues’’ “presumed reaction” to her resignation. This assumption was, as the Ruling points out, “plucked from the air”. It presumed that the colleagues were not aware of the circumstances, such as the threats, surrounding the respondent’s resignation. There was no basis for the presumption. There are therefore no reasonable prospects of success to overturn the Acting Ombud’s finding on this point.
  4. As regards the sanction, I agree with the applicant’s argument that the part of the sanction contained in paragraph 59 of the Ruling amounted to an overreach; I will therefore amend it as below.
  5. For the reasons given above:

5.1 The application for leave to appeal the Acting Ombud’s finding appealed against, is dismissed;

5.2 in terms of Section 7.1 of the Complaints Procedures, the appeal against the sanction is upheld only to the extent referred to below;

5.3 in terms of Section 7.2 of the Complaints Procedures:

5.3.1 Paragraph 59 of the Acting Ombud’s Ruling is replaced by the following: Financial Mail is hereby directed to publish an apology to Ms Segooa for saying that her resignation from the Daybreak Board left other members of the Board “dumbstruck”.

5.3.2 Paragraph 60 of the Acting Ombud’s Ruling is hereby confirmed and must be implemented as directed in the Ruling.

Dated this 5th day of November 2026.

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel

Related Posts