Lawyers for Mr Malusi Shezi, the former CEO of the Construction Education and Training Authority (Ceta), submitted a complaint on 17 November 2025. A day later, a letter of demand with substantially the same content was sent to the Sunday Times’ lawyers.
The Public Advocate, Mr Thabo Leshilo, advised the complainant to revise some aspects of the complaint, in line with his mandate to assist the public.
On 23 November, a revised complaint was received.
On 17 December, the Sunday Times filed a voluminous response which was sent on to the complainant’s lawyers.
On 28 January, the complainant filed a rejoinder. Included was a copy of a judgment from the Gauteng High Court, issued in late August, in which the court refused a request for urgent relief, including an order declaring three previous reports on the Ceta false and defamatory and interdicting further reporting.
Though separate correspondence between the two sides’ lawyers canvassing the same issues was also made available, the following is based on the submissions filed to the Press Council in the matter.

The articles

The news report centres on claims that the Ceta is soon to spend R20m to make its headquarters building in Midrand compliant with health and safety regulations. The building was bought for R49m in 2024 but did not have a working air conditioning system. The additional money is needed to overhaul heating, ventilation and air conditioning system, the article says.
The article also reported that the Auditor General (AG) was about to present a finding to Parliament that the purchase of the building was irregular, after a dispute between the AG and the Ceta over the finding.
It reports that the AG rejected arguments put forward by Shezi and the Ceta, including that the purchase was urgent as the previous owner was selling and had given the Ceta a right of first refusal. Ceta’s argument that the purchase represents a saving is undermined by the necessity of spending a further R20m on it, the article says.
A Ceta employee is quoted anonymously as saying the building is filthy and a safety hazard.
The article further deals with an office in Cape Town that remains unoccupied though the Ceta has been paying R70 000 a month rental for it for three years.
A lawyer for Shezi, who by then had left the Ceta, is quoted as referring inquiries about the Midrand building and the audit to the entity’s administrator.
Ceta did not respond to queries, the article says.
The article concludes by quoting explanations previously offered by Shezi about the purchase of the building.
The editorial says the revelations in the news report do not inspire confidence in the Ceta. How can an entity meant to strengthen the construction sector fail to ensure its own building is up to standard?

The complaint

The complaint is that the article breaches clauses 1.1, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8, 3.3, 10.1, 11.2. Complaints in terms of Clauses 1.2 and 3.5 were withdrawn in the revised complaint.

Late submission

The Sunday Times response was filed late, and the newspaper offers an explanation and requests condonation.
I accept the explanation, particularly since the delay was not excessive, and condone the late submission.

Complaint: Inaccurate reporting

Arguments

The complainant takes issue with two aspects of the report.
First, he says the description of the purchase as irregular and as a waste of money was inaccurate because it failed to mention, or downplayed, the fact that the purchase was approved by the minister.
Second, he says the anonymous employee’s claims about the state of the building should have been verified. Also, the editorial restates them as fact without acknowledging that they were unconfirmed claims by a single individual.
The complainant also says that the omission of various achievements by Shezi creates an incomplete and unbalanced narrative.
After lengthy description of previous critical reporting in several publications, the respondents cite instances where the AG found the purchase to be irregular. The AG’s management report containing the finding is attached, and the reference to the minister’s approval in the article is highlighted.
The Sunday Times justifies its use of the word “dud” as comment based reasonably on the fact that the building needs R20m of refurbishment to become usable.
That fact is in a document provided confidentially to the newspaper, which also corroborates the anonymous source’s statements about the state of the building.
In his rejoinder, the complainant takes extensive issue with references to other articles published as, he says, they are irrelevant to the complaint.
In terms of the AG finding, the complainant says that AG reports are confidential and cannot be relied on for reporting purposes. They can be changed or reviewed, he says.
The rejoinder leaves further points made by the newspaper uncontested, saying they “are to be engaged by the Public Advocate”.

Discussion

A very large number of points are made by both sides in the voluminous submissions. The summary above has restricted itself to the substantial arguments of relevance to the arguments about the two cited articles.
On the question whether there was sufficient evidence to label the purchase of the building as irregular, the newspaper has provided the specific documentation setting out the AG’s view to that effect. Dismissing the AG’s report as something that cannot be relied on does not aid the complainant. In fact, AG findings are authoritative, even though they may sometimes be changed or set aside.
It should also be noted that the article makes it clear that the finding of irregularity is not the newspaper’s, but is the AG’s. Where it refers to a “dud”, on the other hand, it is clear this is the newspaper’s own choice of term.
There is no obligation on the newspaper to include reference to other achievements Shezi would like to highlight. The article deals with a specific issue, the purchase of a building, and is only required to include points of direct relevance.
On the state of the building, the newspaper has a statement from an anonymous staff member and an internal document that argues for the necessity of refurbishment. Though undoubtedly further efforts could have been made, this is sufficient for purposes of the report.

Ruling

There is sufficient evidence to support the core claims in the article that the purchase is irregular and that the building is in a poor state.

Complaint: Right of reply

Arguments

The complainant argues that the newspaper ignored the explanations of the transaction contained in public statements and in legal papers submitted some months earlier. Also, Shezi was not given sufficient chance to respond to the specific claims in the article. The quote from his lawyer merely pointed the reporter to the new management at the Ceta.
The newspaper outlines its interactions with the Ceta and Shezi. They say he was asked for comment, but directed them to his lawyer. The lawyer made the statement quoted in the report. They say he had ample opportunity to respond in detail and cannot now complain he was not given a chance.
They also point out sections in the report which refer to his earlier explanations of the purchase.
The complainant’s rejoinder does not respond to the newspaper’s defence.

Discussion

The newspaper has demonstrated that it gave Shezi sufficient opportunity to respond to the claims they were about to publish.
Furthermore, the article does include reference to his account of the purchase.

Finding

The published reports took adequate steps to include the complainant’s viewpoint.

Complaint: Dignity and reputation

Arguments

The complainant says the allegations against Shezi are false. Therefore, publishing them unfairly tarnished his reputation.
The respondents argue the matters reported are of public interest and are supported by evidence.
The complainant does not respond to the point in his rejoinder.

Discussion

The newspaper has made a persuasive case for reporting the matter. Though it is understandable that Shezi is unhappy with the articles, occupants of positions of trust over significant public resources must be prepared for public scrutiny.

Finding

The articles do not breach the requirements to exercise due care over issues affecting private dignity and reputation.

Complaint: Misleading headlines

Arguments

The complainant argues that the headlines were misleading for similar reasons as advanced for the assertion the reporting itself was false. They were unsupported by facts and created an unjustified impression of wider collapse at the Ceta. The use of the term “irregular” in the headline gave the impression that the finding was final.
The respondents argue that the headlines need to reflect the report, and that the factual basis has been established.
The complainant does not return to the point in his rejoinder.

Discussion

There is adequate basis for the two headlines in both articles. Even though an AG finding may be set aside, it remains authoritative, as argued above. In addition, the placement of the words “irregular purchase” in quotes makes it clear the judgment is not the newspaper’s.
In the context of an editorial column, a headline is perfectly entitled to reflect the newspaper’s viewpoint, as outlined in the column.

Finding

The headlines for both articles are justified.

Complaint: Use of anonymous source

Arguments

The complainant argues that the use of an anonymous staff member as a source was unjustified. Information about the state of the building could have been obtained through on the record sources, denied Shezi to directly confront an accuser and was not corroborated independently.
The respondents argue they did have corroborating evidence, in the shape of an internal document, and that a history of action being taken against whistleblowers at the Ceta justified using the statements anonymously.
The complainant did not respond to the argument in his rejoinder.

Discussion

The newspaper has made a sufficient case for the use of an anonymous source in the report.

Finding

The use of quotes by an anonymous Ceta staff member was justified.

Finding

I find that the articles did not breach any clauses of the Press Code.

Appeal

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
11 February 2026

Shezi vs Sunday Times

Related Posts

Rafik Mohamed and others v Sunday Times/TimesLIVE

Werner Human v News24

News24 vs Maroela Media