Du Rand vs News24

Complaint 000433

Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud 

Date of publication:

27 November 2025

Headline of publication:

“Forensic probe uncovers fraud, forgery, tender manipulation in Swellendam municipality”

Link: https://www.news24.com/southafrica/news/forensic-probe-uncovers-fraud-forgery-tender-manipulation-in-swellendam-municipality-20251126-1138

Author: Marvin Charles

Particulars

1. A complaint was lodged on 8 December 2025 by Francois du Rand, the executive mayor of Swellendam municipality. Copies of correspondence on an earlier complaint were also attached.
2. News 24 responded on 12 January 2026, which included records of WhatsApp messages.
3. The complainant filed a rejoinder on 21 January.
4. I take into account the various submissions filed in this matter, including both the preliminary report by Advocate Etienne Vermaak and the final report by Nexus forensic services.

The article

5. The article reports on the findings of a forensic investigation that, it says, found fraud, forgery and serious procurement irregularities in the Swellendam municipality. Eight tenders worth R49.5m were at issue.
6. The report found that a municipal consultant failed to disclose a family relationship with a recommended bidder, in that he was the father of the bidder whose offer he evaluated and recommended. The bidder was also found to have signed an attendance register under a false name. The process was therefore tainted and the municipality cancelled the tender.
7. These and other issues identified indicated systemic weaknesses in the town’s procurement system, News24 wrote.
8. The article included comment from the ANC, which is in opposition in the town, and from the DA’s provincial leader. It said comment from the municipality and from Du Rand would be added when received.

The complaint

9. The complaint is that the article breaches clauses Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.10, 3.3 and 10.1 of the Press Code.

History of complaint

10. The complainant previously started a complaint process about reporting by the same reporter about issues in Swellendam in 2024 and 2025. However, the complaint was never formally lodged and was marked as “tacitly withdrawn” by the Press Council.
11. In the current complaint, the complainant alleges a “pattern of dishonest and misleading reporting”, referring in detail to four reports published between August 2024 and February 2025.
12. The Public Advocate (PA) correctly said that these earlier reports cannot be put back on the table as they fall outside the procedural timeframe, which requires a complaint to be lodged within 20 working days of publication (Clause 1.3 of the Complaints Procedures).
13. Accordingly, I restrict myself to consideration of the complaint about the report of 27 November 2025.

Complaint: Inaccurate headline

Arguments

14. The complaint is that the headline falsely claims the Nexus report accuses the municipality of fraud, forgery and tender manipulation, when the finding is against an external party, an external consultant and one official.
15. The respondents say that the headline makes no accusation against the municipality as a whole or its leadership.
16. In response, the complainant concedes that some adverse findings were made by Nexus, but says the headline generalises the problem, making the problem appear wider than it is and ignoring areas where the report found there was no problem.

Discussion

17. The complainant reads too much into the headline. It refers to problems found “in” the municipality, not “by” the municipality, as the complaint says.
18. Of necessity, a headline focuses on a particular aspect of what is being reported on, making some simplification unavoidable. What matters is that the headline continues to reflect the substance of the article fairly.
19. The complainant concedes some problems were found, which is what the headline says.
20. The headline is a fair reflection of the report.

Finding

21. I find that the headline did not breach the Press Code.

Complaint: Quoting opinions as facts

Arguments

22. The complainant says the quotes attributed to the ANC were presented as factual, rather than as opinion. They were left to stand unchallenged, though they were not supported by the Nexus report.
23. News24 argues the ANC comment was clearly presented as such, and that the municipality and Du Rand were given ample opportunity to state their position but did not do so.
24. The complainant argues that further context should have been given, and that the way the comment was presented created an impression it was settled fact. He also argues he was not given enough opportunity to respond.

Discussion

25. It is established practice to give space for an opposition party to comment on events arising in a municipal, or other, administration. It is common for parties to use the opportunity to claim credit, exaggerate the situation or use other means to derive political benefit.
26. What matters is that the reader is given enough information to recognise that the comment is part of the political debate.
27. In this case, it was completely clear that the comment by Sifiso Mtsweni was issued on behalf of his party, the ANC.
28. Comment by the DA’s provincial leader is also included.
29. Inclusion of the comment was fully justified.
30. I will return to the question of the complainant’s right of reply.

Finding

31. I find that the article did not breach the Press Code by publishing comments from the ANC.

• Complaint: False claim of systemic failures

Arguments

32. The complainant denies that the Nexus report makes a finding of systemic failure against the municipality. The report only finds against a few isolated cases and specific individuals, and in fact finds several instances where the rules were fully observed.
33. News24 responds by quoting a finding from p19 of the report, which reads: “The issues highlighted misrepresentation of identity, scoring irregularities, exclusion from negotiations, and conflicts of interest point to systemic weaknesses in the municipality’s procurement practices”.
34. In the rejoinder, the complainant says that the term “systemic weakness” has a more limited meaning and should not be understood to suggest the municipality as a whole is characterised by tender manipulation.

Discussion

35. The sentence provided by News24 in support of the allegation of systemic weakness comes from p19 of the earlier Vermaak report, not the Nexus report. Though the Vermaak report makes multiple references to systemic issues, the Nexus report makes only specific findings.
36. As such, the article misattributes the claim.

• Ruling

37. I find that the article misreports the allegation of systemic difficulties by attributing it to the wrong report.

Complaint: False claim of municipal wrongdoing in a long-term IT contract

Arguments

38. The complainant argues that the article misreports Nexus’s findings on an IT contract. The claim that contract renewal far exceeded Treasury’s guidelines is not reflected in the actual report, which instead finds the rules were observed.
39. News24 points to the places in the report which they say indicate extensions of the contract that exceeded Treasury guidelines.
40. In his rejoinder, the complainant repeats that the extensions and changes were allowable.

Discussion

41. Again, the respondents are referring to the wrong report. The Vermaak report makes extensive and scathing findings about the IT contract which was initially concluded for three years but then extended to a total of 8 or 9, involving a company that apparently changed names. At various points it finds that procurement processes were manipulated, and that reasons for amendment and extension were insufficient and even incredible. (p50)
42. However, the Nexus report, which subsequently investigated the Vermaak findings, accepted explanations offered by the municipal manager and in the end found that “all amendments and extensions complied with Circular 62 and or Section 116(3) of the MFMA” (Municipal Finance Management Act). (p103) Note that the provisions cited are the ones that impose conditions and limits on variations of municipal procurement contracts.
43. This is a significant difference, as it meant that the earlier finding was contradicted by the later investigation. This needed to be reflected correctly.
44. If News24 intended to present its own, different conclusion from the facts, this should have been made clear. The ordinary reader would understand the conclusions about the IT contract as being those from the Nexus report.
45. The pages in the Nexus report mentioned by the respondents mostly contain some of the factual evidence they found, not the claimed conclusion. The final recommendation is to be found on p103.

Ruling

46. I find that the article misreports the claims of improper extension of the IT contract.

Complaint: Misattribution of misconduct to the municipality

Arguments

47. The complaint is that the report’s statement that Nexus “identified problems across several other bids, including inconsistent scoring, incomplete verification of documents, weak verification of information supplied by bidders and poor oversight of external consultants” improperly shifts the blame from external parties to the municipality. In fact, the Nexus report blames external consultants for scoring irregularities and finds that the municipality corrected faults and awarded contracts to the correct parties.
48. The respondents say the claim is that irregularities were identified in the tender processes but that no criminal conduct was ascribed to the municipal leadership.
49. In the rejoinder, the complainant asserts that the overall framing implicates the municipality, and that an important positive finding – as in the case of the IT contract – should have been pointed out.

Discussion

50. The statement the complainant objects to attributes blame to the municipality only in the form of poor oversight of external consultants.  The other points, including issues with scoring and verification, are made by the report.
51. Though the Nexus report does not explicitly make a general claim of poor oversight, it makes multiple recommendations to improve oversight of consultants, with the clear implication that it found areas of weakness. Also, it should be noted that in a general sense the municipality cannot escape responsibility for problems in its procurement processes.
52. In discussing the complaint about the headline, I have already dealt with the related statement that the probe uncovered evidence of fraud, corruption and procurement in the municipality. I have pointed out that the problems were not said to implicate officials or the political leadership.
53. The report was justified in summarising the report’s findings as it did.

Ruling

54. The report did not breach the Press Code by wrongly blaming the municipality for problems in procurement.

Right of reply

Arguments

58. The complainant does not raise a failure to obtain his or the municipality’s comment as a specific complaint. On the contrary, he says they will not engage directly with the reporter because of what Du Rand calls his “demonstrated lack of reliability and apparent disregard for corrections and balance”. Instead, he prefers to rely on the Press Council to ensure accountability.
59. The respondents outline the efforts made by Charles to obtain comment from Du Rand and the municipality, including copies of WhatsApp messages exchanged. News24 says the complainant did not respond, ask for more time or say he would approach the PCSA. The article recorded that a response would be added once received.
60. They argue that the article complied with the Press Code requirements to offer a right of reply and say it was grossly unfair to attack Charles personally. News24 also points out that the company’s internal ombud was not approached for redress.
61. In the rejoinder, the complainant accepts that attempts were made to obtain comment, but suggests these were not meaningful as not enough time was allowed. The fact that he did not ask for more time was not decisive, the request should have allowed enough time. Also, he was not obliged to use the company’s internal channels.

Discussion

59. Though Du Rand did not initially lay a formal complaint that News24 did not obtain comment, the matter came up in the papers and therefore deserves consideration.
60. Section 1.8 of the Press Code says that the media must

seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication, except when they might be prevented from reporting, or evidence destroyed, or sources intimidated. Such a subject should be afforded reasonable time to respond; if unable to obtain comment, this shall be stated;

61. The provision places the responsibility for allowing the subject of critical reportage to have his or her say on the media.
62. The subject is not obliged to take up the opportunity offered. But if they choose not to, they have to take responsibility for the result.
63. In this case, the reporter took adequate steps to obtain comment from the complainant and the municipality. The complaint makes it clear that they chose not to respond as they do not trust the reporter, but that is not enough reason to stay silent.

64. The complainant is right, however, to say that he is not obliged to make use of News24’s internal processes.

Ruling

65. The report did not breach the Press Code by failing to obtain comment.

Finding

66. I find that the article breached Clause 1.2 of the Press Code by incorrectly attributing a statement about systemic weaknesses to the report by Nexus; and by claiming that the report criticised the IT contract when in fact it cleared the municipality on that point.
67. The complaints that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 3, 1.7, 1.10, 3.3 and 10.1 of the Press Code are dismissed for the reasons outlined above.

Sanction

68. News24 is directed to correct the report and apologise to Du Rand and the Swellendam municipality for misrepresenting aspects of the Nexus report.
69. The text of the report should be corrected in a way that makes it clear it was changed, with an editor’s note at the bottom explaining the change and containing the apology. The note should include the logo of the PCSA and a link to this ruling.
70. A line should be added below the headline, reading “This article has been corrected. See editor’s note, below, including an apology to Francois du Rand and the Swellendam municipality.”

71. The correction and apology should be published as soon as is practicable after the expiration of the deadline for appeal.

72. The wording and treatment shall be approved by me before publication.

Appeal

73. 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@presscouncil.org.za

Ruling by
Franz Krüger, Deputy Press Ombud
16 February 2026