Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Rev Vukile Mehana and Dr Naledi Mbude-Mehana vs Sunday Times

, ,

Complaint 32131                                                                                            

Ruling by the Press Ombud

Dates of articles:                01 December 2024-19 January 2025

Headline of publication:   Various

Author:                                  Thanduxolo Jika

  1. Rev Dr Vukile Mehana and Dr Naledi Mbude-Mehana complain about a series of articles published by the Sunday Times in print and on TimesLive.
  2. The complaint was initially deferred by the Public Advocate as Dr Mbude-Mehana laid criminal charges against the journalist in question for alleged harassment, crimen injuria and defamation – a move that was decried by the Sunday Times as an intimidation tactic. The complaints process only resumed after Dr Mbude-Mehana withdrew her criminal complaint in order for the Press Council procedure to proceed.
  3. Another development is that Sunday Times published a clarification and correction of its articles on 06 July 2025 pursuant to the Mehana’s complaints. It was styled, “Matter of Fact”, and was published in the print edition of Sunday Times and on TimesLive.
  4. The Mehanas are dissatisfied with the clarification/correction and seek a full retraction and apology of the articles.

Background

  1. The Mehanas are prominent public figures. Rev Dr Mehana was the executive chairperson of Sizwe IT (“Sizwe”), a subsidiary of the JSE listed AYO Technologies, and a former chaplain-general of the ANC. Dr Mbude-Mehana is a former head of the department of education in the Eastern Cape and currently holds a senior position in the national department of basic education. The couple got married in August 2022.
  2. The further tie between them drawn by the Sunday Times is the business relationship between Sizwe IT and the department of education of the Eastern Cape.
  3. Sunday Times reported that the Mehanas are being “investigated by the Hawks for their involvement in a disastrous R500m school tablets contract”. The publication further reported that the couple got married just months after two payments totalling R330m were made to Sizwe and that the payments were negotiated when Mbude-Mehana was head of department in 2021 and 2022.
  4. It is common cause that Mbude-Mehana was suspended by the Eastern Cape Premier in April 2022 (albeit apparently for reasons unrelated to the tenders). She has since resigned and later joined the national department of basic education as a deputy director-general.
  5. The Mehanas are aggrieved by several aspects of the articles. In general terms, they believe the articles were sensationalised, inaccurate, and unfair. The complaints can conveniently be grouped into four categories:
  • There is a complaint about the “misleading front page and headline: ‘For love or money’”
  • Complaints about accuracy of reported facts and distortions of facts presented. This engages Clause 1.1. and Clause 1.2. of the Press Code.
  • The Mehanas complain about their right to reply. Clause 1.8. of the Press Code requires the media to seek pre-publication comment from subjects of critical reportage and to fairly reflect their responses.
  • Reputational harm. Clause 3 of the Press Code mandates the media to exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation, which may be overridden only if it is in the public interest and under defined circumstances.
  1. Each of these categories will be considered below.

Headline

  1. The Mehanas take issue with the headline, “For love of money”, used in the print edition. The online headline for the 01 December 2024 article was, “Top education official tied the knot with IT boss soon after R330m payout to firm”.
  2. The sub-heading was, “Deputy DG married IT company chair soon after R330m paid to his firm.”
  3. The Mehanas take issue with the headline as it is said to insinuate that their marriage “is as a result of the two payments totalling R330m”. They say: “(T)he article demonises a fortunate, rare and magical moment of two individuals finding golden love.”
  4. Clause 10.1. of the Press Code details the media’s responsibility in respect of headlines:

“Headlines…shall not mislead the public and shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report or photograph in question.”

  1. The question is therefore whether the headline reflects the contents of the report or whether it is possibly misleading readers. In evaluating this aspect, the headline must be read in context. A reasonable reader reads an article in context, including the headline and the images, rather than seizing on specific aspects (Mail & Guardian vs Duarte, Jessie, 21 June 2016).
  2. This is, in my view, even more true in the instances of cryptic headlines. It is unimaginable that a reader would only read the words, “For love or money” and only look at the wedding picture of the Mehanas to jump to a conclusion of a “transactional” marriage.
  3. Sunday Times denies that the headline suggested that the marriage was “transactional”. It says the article sets out the timing of events and the undisputed fact that the Mehanas marriage occurred shortly after large payments were made to a company headed at the time by Rev Mehana by the department formerly headed by Dr Mbude-Mehana.
  4. The remainder of the elements of the “package” all alluded to the different aspects of the article, being tenders and a police investigation.
  5. I agree that the headline simply referred to the two interconnected issues being, a) the business relationship between the department formerly headed by Dr Mbude-Mehana and the company led by Rev Mehana, and b) their romantic relationship. The insinuation is a question of possible conflict of interest, which is explicitly raised in the article as follows:

“Investigators (of the Hawks) have requested specific documentation, including Mbude-Mehana’s declarations of interest for the financial years 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23, all correspondence with Sizwe IT and any documents related to the authorisation of the settlement.

“This is to determine whether Mbude-Mehana had disclosed her relationship with Mehana, who served as both a director and executive chair of Sizwe during the period in question.”

  1. I therefore cannot find that the headline misled the readers about the contents of the article.

Accuracy and distortions

  1. The Mehanas say the articles contained several inaccuracies. Sunday Times, in fact, conceded some of those inaccuracies.
  2. Clause 1.1. of the Press Code requires the media to report truthfully, accurately, and fairly.
  3. What is referred to in clause 1.1. of the Press Code is assertions of facts in news reporting. This clause demands full and complete factual accuracy from news publications and not merely substantial accuracy. Facts are not negotiable or flexible.
  4. In light of the above, I consider the allegations of factual inaccuracies made by the complainants.
  5. Sunday Times acknowledges the following factual inaccuracies:
  • Sunday Times reported the sale of the Mehana’s house in Midrand was for R7.5m. This was incorrect and, in fact, only the advertised price.
  • It was incorrectly reported that Dr Mbude-Mehana resigned from the Eastern Cape department in May 2022. She was suspended in that month but only resigned in May 2023.
  1. Sunday Times corrected these factual errors after complaints from the Mehanas and before the matter was sent for adjudication. It is commendable that the publication corrected these errors out of own accord. It does not detract from the fact that the Press Code was breached but has an impact on the sanction to be considered below.
  2. Whilst the Sunday Times reported that the Mehanas “are being investigated by the Hawks”, the Mehanas say this is untrue. However, the publication provided me with a letter from the Hawks to the Eastern Cape education department confirming a criminal investigation and specifically mentioning Dr Mbude-Mehana’s name and the company formerly led by Rev Mehana. It was accurate to report that the Mehanas were under police investigation.
  3. The remainder of the complaints centre around alleged distortions of the facts. They are:
  • Creating the impression that the controversy is about the notorious school tablet issue while it is not. Specifically, the allegation that certain payments were made in respect of the impugned tablets contract notwithstanding a High Court order interdicting this is incorrect.
  • The R330 million payment to Sizwe IT is said to be for historic debt and not for any new contract awarded to Sizwe IT whilst Dr Mbude-Mehana was either the acting head of department or permanent head of department.
  • The linking of R330m payments to Dr Mbude-Mehana’s suspension and resignation.
  1. Clause 1.2. of the Press Code reads:

“(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.”

  1. The question is therefore whether there was a departure from the facts, distortion or misrepresentation.
  2. It appears from the documents submitted by both the complainants and the publication that:
  • There is indeed a Hawks investigation into the dealings between the Eastern Cape department and Sizwe IT. It is confirmed through a letter by the Hawks and confirmation from the department of education’s spokesperson, which is not disputed. In fact, in one of the later articles, it is recorded that Sizwe IT made a voluntary disclosure on the news service of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) that it discovered procurement irregularities. It is the scope and underlying facts of the criminal investigation that remains unclear.
  • Rev Mehana was actively involved in dealings with the department. In one letter he signed, Sizwe proposed an “all-encompassing settlement that Sizwe, first, would be willing to transfer the tablets and other equipment at no additional cost to the DOE…”. This letter was apparently addressed to Dr Naledi Mbude-Mehana as head of department. Rev Mehana says in his response to the publication: “As an Executive Chair, it was part of my duties (to) sign all such Proposals or agreements on behalf of Sizwe for discussion with other Parties.”
  • From the above, it appears that the tablets are not entirely unconnected from the matters at hand. Sizwe proposed that it would give up ownership of the tablets (“transfer” it) to the department in exchange for settlement of debt incurred through various contracts.
  • There is a controversy about possible conflict of interest. Declarations of interest were pertinently requested by the Hawks investigators. Rev Mehana said in one of his responses: “Fortunately, Sizwe never received any new contracts during the short stint of Dr Mbude-Mehana as HoD. There has been no need to declare any interest as there wasn’t. Our private life had nothing to do with Sizwe and DoE.”
  • Whilst there were apparently no new contracts when Dr Mbude-Mehana was the head of the department, there were indeed negotiations between the department and Sizwe about the settlement of outstanding debt and how this would be paid. Thus, the proposal from Sizwe that a certain amount would be accepted as settlement under certain conditions. For full context, it also appears uncontroversial that the department owed various of its suppliers. However, this does not detract from the fact that all those suppliers would have wanted their invoices settled and negotiated with the department about how, when, and how much they could receive.
  • Dr Mbude-Mehana denies authorising any payments to Sizwe. She says payments were authorised during the tenure of an acting HoD, Mr Mahlubandile Qwase.
  1. Sunday Times effectively concedes a distortion in the following paragraph that was published:

“Mbude-Mehana was suspended in April 2022, shortly before the payments went through. A month later she resigned after reaching an undisclosed settlement with Eastern Cape premier Oscar Mabuyane.”

  1. I say they concede this, as the subsequently published “Matter of Fact” corrected the resignation date (which was only in 2023) and said: “Her suspension had nothing to do with the payments to Sizwe Africa”.
  2. Sunday Times proceeded to state in their clarification:

“Subsequent to the publication of the articles, Rev Mehana and Dr Mbude-Mehana have brought to our attention a document which shows the payment of R330m mentioned in our reporting excluded the tablets contract, which was under a court interdict.

“Dr Mbude-Mehana has also pointed out that correspondence regarding a financial settlement between Sizwe Africa and the department was not only between her and the department, but also involved other officials who acted as head of department at various times.”

  1. The “Matter of Fact” clarifies the position around the tablets contract, the historic debt owed to Sizwe, and timeline of events to a considerable extent. Again, this does not detract from the fact that there was a distortion in breach of clause 1.2. of the Press Code. It will, however, be considered in the sanction below.

Right of reply

  1. The complainants allege a transgression of Clause 1.8. of the Press Code.
  2. They say, firstly, that they have not been afforded sufficient time to respond. This aspect is somewhat moot as they indeed responded to media queries.
  3. Secondly, the Mehanas say their answers were not adequately represented.
  4. Looking at the original article, the following version of the Mehanas were reflected:
  • A denial of impropriety;
  • That the payments – R98m on April 25, 2022 and R232m on May 26, 2022 – were not for the tablets contract, but for other contracts Sizwe had with the department. “It is a lie that any monies were paid while there was a court interdict.”
  • “When I took over as acting HoD for a month in March, the department owed R1.8bn to suppliers as at March 31, the end of the financial year. We didn’t have a cent to pay these suppliers, including Sizwe.”
  • Dr Mbude-Mehana provided a letter signed by the late Dr Soyisile Nuku, who served in an acting capacity in February 2021, in which Nuku committed to settling all outstanding payments owed to Sizwe Africa by March.
  1. The Mehanas version was amplified through the “Matter of Fact” and follow-up articles.
  2. I am therefore satisfied that there was no breach of clause 1.8.

Reputation

  1. The Mehanas feel strongly that their reputations were unfairly tainted by the reportage – so much so that criminal charges were laid at some point. They also take umbrage at the fact that Sunday Times consistently references the fact that she has since been appointed in a senior position in national government despite her suspension and resignation in the Eastern Cape.
  2. I appreciate that all subjects of critical reportage would feel aggrieved by what has been written about them. That is, however, not the primary consideration.
  3. Clause 3 of the Press code mandates the media to “exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation, which may be overridden only if it is in the public interest and if:

“3.3.1. the facts reported are true or substantially true; or

“3.3.4. it was reasonable for the information to be communicated because it was prepared in accordance with acceptable principles of journalistic conduct…”

  1. The public interest in the subject matter is manifest. It concerns the spending of public funds. Both the Mehanas are prominent individuals in positions of power and authority. The publication did not prey into the marital life of the Mehanas, but merely the fact that they are married.
  2. It is the sting of the article, and not the different underlying components of the article, that must be justified by a publication.
  3. The sting of the article, in my view, is the allegation of a conflict of interest. In that regard, the following facts appear to be true or substantially true:
  • The business relationship between Sizwe IT and the department, as well as settlement discussions whilst the Mehanas were in instrumental positions at the different entities. Correspondences were apparently even addressed in their names to one another as part of negotiations.
  • The fact that the Hawks are investigating the aspect of an alleged conflict of interest by pertinently requesting Dr Mbude-Mehana’s declarations of interest.
  1. On that basis, the publication was justified in publishing the articles.
  2. I also find that the publications were in conformity with principles of journalistic conduct. It was reasonable to publish the allegations.
  • The publications relied on documentary evidence suggesting an investigation into, amongst others, the alleged conflict of interest issue.
  • The publications sought comment from both parties as well as the department, who confirmed the Hawks investigation.
  1. It was reasonable, notwithstanding the shortcomings in some of the aspects of the story that were later identified. Put differently: From the prism of an alleged reputation violation, does a dissection of whether the Hawks are investigating the tablet contract or procurement from Sizwe IT in general or only a settlement reached between Sizwe and the department really all-important when considering the justification of raising critical questions that may affect the Mehanas reputation? I think not. The issue is that there is a probe into the dealings between the two entities dating from a period where the Mehanas were in instrumental positions at the respective entities.
  2. The complaint about a reputation infringement is dismissed.

Conclusion

  1. The publication breached sections 1.1. and 1.2. of the Press Code to the extent set out above.
  2. The transgressions are Tier 2 (serious) transgressions.
  3. In terms of paragraph 8 of the Complaints Procedure, the Ombud has a discretion to order reprimands, cautions, corrections, retractions, and apologies for Tier 2 breaches.
  4. I have considered that Sunday Times corrected the factual inaccuracies and distortions out of own volition.
  5. Sunday Times/Times Live is reprimanded for the breaches of the Press Code.
  6. The “Matter of Fact” already published online is to be updated with a reference and link to this ruling and recordal of the fact that the publication was reprimanded.
  7. The same is to be published in the print edition of the Sunday Times with reference to the earlier clarification.
  8. The texts of the online update and the print edition recordal shall be approved by me prior to publication.

Appeal

The Complaints Procedure lays down 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@ombudsman.org.za.

Herman Scholtz

Press Ombud

04 November 2025

 

 

Related Posts