Thomas vs News24

Complaint 32361

Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud

Date of publication:

16 January 2019 (updated sometime between June and August 2025)

Headline of publication:

“UPDATE: Executive head parts ways with Roedean”

Link: https://www.news24.com/roedean-head-of-school-suspended-investigation-under-way-board-20190116

Author: Canny Mapanga

Particulars

1. A complaint was lodged on 30 September 2025 by John Makate of Rupert Candy Attorneys, on behalf of Murray Thomas, former head of Roedean School.
2. The Public Advocate (PA), Fanie Groenewald, wrote back seeking further clarification around the lateness of the complaint, some six years after initial publication.
3. A response came from Makate on 4 November, explaining that the complaint was not against the original article but against the update published in 2025, and requesting that the complaint be accepted. The response included a “personal impact statement” from Thomas.
4. News24 were asked for a response and filed one on 12 November 2025.
5. Makate filed a rejoinder on 2 December 2025.
6. The matter was passed on to me on 16 December 2025. I take into account the various submissions filed. It should be noted that the 2019 version of the article – prior to amendment – was not made available.

The article

7. The updated article is headlined “UPDATE: Executive head parts ways with Roedean”. Still with the original date of 16 January 2019, it reports that Roedean School has “parted ways” with its executive head, Murray Thomas, following a suspension for which no reasons were given at the time.
8. The report also refers to a report on TimesLive that said the development was unconnected to the dismissal and rehiring of a teacher and an incident at a school assembly which had led to an apology from Murray. The article then quotes his legal representatives as saying he had “amicably” parted ways with the school “in the absence of any investigation by the board”.
9. An editors’ note at the foot of the item explained that the amendment had been made after News24 was shown documentary evidence that Murray was never investigated or charged, but resigned voluntarily.

The complaint

10. The complaint is that the article breaches clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11 and 3.3 of the Press Code.

Acceptance of the complaint

Arguments

11. The matter is complicated by the fact that the original article appeared some six years ago, which puts filing a complaint in 2025 far beyond the timelines set out in the Press Council procedures. In terms of section 1.3, a complaint must be filed within 20 working days after publication.
12. The original publication attracted no complaint. In 2025, however, Murray engaged with News24 directly, a meeting was held in June and the update was published as a result.
13. Murray is unhappy with the update and his representative argues this is a new publication, creating a new starting point for the 20-day requirement.
14. The complainant notes there are few precedents for the argument he wants to make, but finds support in a previous decision by the Ombud (Complaint 32291, Russell vs Media24 Publications), in which the Ombud was asked to deal with a complaint that was out of time. The Ombud declined to accept the complaint, but made the following remark:

“Mr Russell is, of course, free to approach the relevant publications who wrote about him (with satisfactory supporting material) on the basis that there has been a material change of events such as an acquittal or withdrawal of charges and request them to follow up. Should he do so and then feel that the relevant publications did not act in accordance with the Press Code, such a Complaint would be an entirely new matter.”

The complainant in the present case chooses to label this view the New Publication Doctrine.

15. The complainant further has the difficulty that even from the date of publication of the update, the complaint was not filed within the required timeframe.
16. The complaint argues that as the update was published on an unknown date after the meeting on June 10 2025, the allowable time for submitting a complaint should be started on the date Murray became aware of the new publication, which was 24 August 2025. The complaint should have been submitted by 19 September to make the 20-day deadline, but was in fact only filed on 30 September.
17. The complainant asks for condonation of late submission, offering an extensive argument about the need to secure counsel, the complexity of the matter, having tried to engage again with News24 and having been busy with other important matters, among other things.
18. The respondents do not make an argument on the question of whether the complaint has been submitted too late for consideration.
19. On the merits, however, they argue that they reported uncontested facts and that Thomas’s insistence on determining the approach they should take is an attempt to infringe their independence.

Discussion

20. The Press Council exists to offer a mechanism for speedy resolution of complaints, and the requirement to lodge a complaint within a specified timeframe has been put in place to ensure this end is served, as noted in the 2022 decision in Jurie Roux vs News24 (2^ndAppeal Decision). The longer the delay, the better the reason should be.
21. It is unusual to have a complaint lodged so long after the original article appeared, as the PA noted in the present matter.
22. However, the complainant argues that the complaint is not against the original article but against the update that was filed during 2025.
23. To support the argument, the complainant relies on the remark quoted in paragraph 14 above. It is something of a stretch to label the brief comment as a doctrine.
24. The complainant claims the comment sets out the principle that “where a publication is materially amended after new information is provided, a complaint arises from the updated publication, not the original”.
25. However, this is not in fact the point the Ombud made. His brief remark came after he affirmed that the media have a duty to report on significant new developments in a case they have covered. He said that if something important happened after the initial reports were published, such as an acquittal, the complainant would be entitled to draw the media’s attention to it. If s/he was unhappy with the response, s/he could complain as that would then constitute a new matter. The comment does not establish a principle around the handling of an amended report.
26. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to accept that an act of publishing can attract a complaint even if it simply updates or amends an earlier article. One can imagine circumstances where an update adds material that is flagrantly in breach of the code.
27. But the question is how far the principle goes. The complainant assumes that everything is on the table once it has been established that a new publication has taken place.
28. If we were to follow this logic, it would open a back door for a complainant to reopen an old matter, circumventing the requirement for timely submission of a complaint.
29. It is therefore reasonable to specify that a complaint against an amended report can only be focused on new elements. Whatever survives from the original should have been complained against at the time.
30. In the present case, the question is what in the brief update is new and can therefore properly be subject to complaint.
31. The complainant argues that the update is different in that it “introduced editorial framing that inadequately addressed prior inaccuracies”; “retained misleading associations”; and “was backdated in a way that diminished its visibility”.
32. The first two points explicitly relate the complaint to the earlier report. At many points in the submissions, it is made clear that a fundamental grievance is that the update does not sufficiently repair what are seen as deficiencies in the original report. But the complainant cannot have it both ways, wanting the update to be treated as entirely new but insisting it be read with the first version.  I will return to the third point, the question of the date.
33. More specifically, the complaint is:
    • that the update mentions unrelated developments at the school – a suspension, an apology, and the rehiring of another teacher – creating a link to Thomas’s departure from Roedean that distorted the facts. His version was “insufficiently emphasised”, says the complaint.
    • That he was not contacted for comment before publication.
    • That the update therefore did not make appropriate amends for the original article.
    • That the update did not explicitly reveal it was done in 2025, creating a misleading impression.
    • That this all adds up to a failure to exercise due care and consideration for the complainant’s dignity and reputation.
    • Other points are made, but arise substantially from these.
34. The complaint makes it clear that Thomas is particularly aggrieved by the mention of unrelated developments. But according to the complaint itself, these details were in the original report, and so they do not constitute new material.
35. Furthermore, the report quotes another news outlet, TimesLive, as having reported that these developments were “not linked” to the departure of Thomas from Roedean. The point being made is precisely what the complainant is asking for – to distance his departure from the developments referenced.
36. The fact that Thomas was suspended was also in the original report, according to the complaint itself, and is uncontested.
37. What is new is that he presented evidence that he was not charged with anything nor was investigated, but left his post at Roedean school voluntarily. The point is attributed to his legal representatives. As reflected in the editor’s note, the evidence was accepted by the newspaper and appears in the update. Beyond questions of emphasis, to which I will return shortly, it is not clear why this would be in breach of provisions of the code.
38. It can also not be said that his version was not reflected, as the update is built around his input. There was no need to seek further comment.
39. He argues that certain points should have been made more prominently. But he is not entitled to insist that the newspaper follow his viewpoint to the letter. It would only rise to the level of a breach if material distortion resulted, which is not the case here. News24 has the right to exercise editorial discretion – what is required is that its editors do so within the code’s principles for fair, accurate and complete reporting.
40. With regard to the dating of the update, it would certainly have been better to clarify when it was published rather than leaving the impression it was published in 2019. However, I do not consider this of sufficient weight to constitute a breach of the code.
41. Beyond a brief reference to a confidentiality clause in the separation agreement with the school, the complainant offers no explanation why he did not take up the reporting six years ago.
42. In summary, though the complaint is filed against an update published in 2025, the substance of the complaint is about material published much earlier and the complaint therefore falls foul of the Press Council’s requirements to complain within 20 days of publication.
43. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the substantive arguments beyond the limited investigation of the question of what is new in the update.
44. I also do not regard it as necessary to consider whether the submission of the complaint more than 20 days after even the 2025 date of publication can be condoned.

Ruling

45. I decline to accept the complaint on the grounds that it is late.

Appeal

46. The Complaints Procedures lay 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@presscouncilsa.org.za

Ruling by
Franz Krüger, Deputy Press Ombud
20 January 2026