Motaung vs Sunday World

Complaint 000465

Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud 

Date of publication:

11 January 2026

Headline of publication:

“Thuso Motaung and wife accused of influencing crossover song”

Link: https://sundayworld.co.za/news/thuso-motaung-and-wife-accused-of-influencing-crossover-song/

Author: Bongani Mdakane

Particulars

1. A complaint was lodged on 14 January 2025 by Thuso Motaung, a radio presenter with the SABC station Lesedi FM.
2. The Public Advocate (PA) initially declined to accept the complaint on the grounds that there was no prima facie case for Sunday World to answer. He had refused to respond and could therefore not complain after the fact.
3. The complainant persisted in the complaint on the basis that he had not refused to respond and had not been given a reasonable opportunity to do so. The PA reopened the matter.
4. Sunday World filed an undated response with several attachments.
5. The complainant filed a rejoinder on 5 February.
6. I take into account the various submissions filed in this matter.

The article

7. The article reports that the choice of a “crossover song” on Lesedi FM was unduly influenced by the complainant and his wife. The song is played at midnight on the last night of the year, a sought-after slot usually reserved for the most popular song of the year. The song played is “normally crowned” song of the year, according to the report.
8. In this case, the song played was Ya Itshepelang Modimo by Oufadafada, a song that some regarded as obscure, the article says.
9. The decision was reportedly made after intervention by the complainant and his wife, Mamontha Motaung, the station’s business manager. Sources at the station, including unnamed members of the station’s music committee, are quoted as saying Mamontha Motaung attended a meeting of the committee and instructed them to choose Ya Itshepelang Modimo, though she was not a member of the committee.
10. The article further quotes comments made by listeners on social media who were critical of the choice, as well as a statement from the Free State Music Association, who called for an explanation from the station. Further comment comes from Oufadafada and the SABC spokesperson Mmoni Ngubane, who says the song was not voted for by listeners.
11. The article first says that “the couple, who were contacted separately on numerous occasions by Sunday World, refused to comment”. At the end of the article, it records that “Thuso and Mamontha did not respond to questions sent to them at the time of going to press”.
12. Two other members of the committee declined to comment, it is reported.

The complaint

13. The complaint is that the article breaches Clauses 1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.8 and 10.1 of the Press Code.  Though not listed in the complaint, the complainant makes several references to the publication of unverified information, which would be a breach of Clause 1.7. Various other points are made by the complainant that do not relate to the Press Code. I focus on those points that do relate to the Code’s provisions.

Complaint: Inaccurate reporting

Arguments

14. The complaint is that the report contains several inaccuracies and unverified information: first, that presenter Mzwakhe Kachela is not, in fact, a member of the committee, as claimed.
15. Second, the complainant says the statement that he first came across the song in his car is unverified.
16. Third, the complainant also objects to the assertion that he and his wife failed to consult the programmes manager. His argument is that as he is a freelancer, he does not have the right to talk to management. In a later document, the point is made that the claim was not verified.
17. Fourth, the complainant says the claim that the song did not qualify as it had not been on high rotation at the station presupposed the existence of objective data on the station’s playlist and rotation, and that it is unclear whether such data was consulted. Without such evidence, the claim is speculative.
18. Fifthly, the complaint says that statements about what his wife said to him after the meeting were unverified.
19. Finally, the complainant also objects to the reporting of what transpired at the meeting as there is no evidence of his having accessed formal records of the meeting.
20. The respondents do not respond to these points, restricting themselves to the question of whether the complainant was given adequate opportunity to respond.
21. The complainant does not return to these issues in his rejoinder.

Discussion

22. It is a pity that the respondents chose not to react to the specific points of the complaint. In fact, factual claims do need to stand scrutiny even if the person written about was, in the newspaper’s view, given an adequate chance to respond.
23. On the first purely factual point, that Kachela is not in fact a member of the music committee, there is therefore nothing to contradict the complainant’s assertion. I must accept that this was incorrectly reported.
24. On the second, the claim that the complainant first came across the song in his car is second-hand. The report says “it is understood” to be the case. Though it is unclear what weight should be attached to this detail, the questions sent to the complainant mentioned claims about where and how he first came across the song. It is a matter that the complainant could have clarified if he had spoken to the reporter.
25. On the third point, it is not clear how the complainant’s position in the radio station disproves the claim that he and his wife, who is business manager, failed to consult the programmes manager.
26. The alleged failure to consult is clearly a claim attributed to one of the reporter’s sources, which satisfies the requirement of Clause 1.3 that “…opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such.” The reporter’s questions were centred on the role played by the couple in the choice of song, of which the claimed failure to consult forms a necessary part. Though confirmation of the specific claim would have strengthened the reporting, the detail is not of such central importance as to make it essential.
27. On the fourth point, it is also not clear why the newspaper would have been required to consult data to prove the popularity of a particular song. It seems reasonable to quote a source at the station as expressing the view that the song was not popular enough to qualify for the important and high-profile slot.
28. Fifthly, claims about what passed between the complainant and his wife are made by one of the sources, who is quoted directly. Though it is clear these are allegations, it is highly doubtful that the source would have been witness to a private conversation between the two.  The unverified claims should have been treated with greater caution.
29. Finally, the reporting on what happened at the music committee meeting relied on accounts from people at the meeting. That was sufficient, there was no need for written documents.

Finding

30. I find that the article is inaccurate in naming Kachela as a member of Lesedi FM’s music committee, breaching Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.

31. I find that the article is in breach of Clause 1.7 by making unverified claims about what passed between the complainant and his wife.

32. Other points of complaint are dismissed.

Complaint: Failure to obtain comment

Arguments

33. The complainant says the assertion that he refused to comment is inaccurate, and that he was not given a proper opportunity to do so.
34. The complaint is also that Mannini Nyokong, the programmes manager, should have been asked for comment as the statement that she was not consulted impugned her professional conduct.
35. In response, the newspaper lists the attempts made by the reporter to elicit comment from both the complainant and his wife. Two phone calls remained unanswered on January 3, while a third to Mamontha Motaung’s phone was answered by her husband. In a brief call, the reporter identified himself and asked for comment on the story, and the complainant responded by asking to be left alone in the privacy of his home. A WhatsApp message with questions was sent to her phone on the same day, though it is not clear whether it was read.
36. At 10:21 am on January 8, questions were sent to the complainant’s phone by WhatsApp with a request for a response by 3pm on the same day. They show up as having been read, but were not answered.
37. Copies of the messages and a recording of the call were supplied by the respondent.
38. The respondents do not deal with the point about the programmes manager.
39. In his rejoinder, the complainant accepts that messages were sent, but says the claims made were of a serious nature and that the time allowed for response was insufficient. Also, the complainant says a failure to respond cannot be characterised as a refusal.

Discussion

40. It is certainly true that the complainant and his wive deserved an opportunity to state their case and that they needed to have sufficient opportunity to do so.
41. According to the newspaper’s account, attempts to reach the couple started on January 3 and were redoubled on January 8, with several detailed messages. The time allowed on that day to formulate a response was around five hours.
42. Though the accusations were serious, they were not of great complexity. It would not have taken much time to formulate a response. Also, the complainant was aware of the newspaper’s interest for several days before the detailed questions were sent.
43. The newspaper took sufficient steps to secure a response from the complainant and his wife.
44. Under circumstances where someone declines an opportunity to discuss a matter on the phone and then fails to respond to detailed and specific messages, it is not unreasonable to characterise the failure to respond as a “refusal”.
45. The complaint about a failure to obtain comment from the programmes manager does not hold water as the claim that she was not consulted does not reflect poorly on her. There was no obligation to ask for her comment in terms of clause 1.8. I have dealt with the question of whether the statement was sufficiently verified above.

Finding

46. I find that the article did not breach Clause 1.8 by failing to offer the complainant adequate opportunity to put forward their version of events.

• Complaint: Misleading poster

Arguments

47. The complaint is that the poster referring to the article, “Thuso Motaung and wife in Song of the Year row” is misleading on the basis that Lesedi does not have a Song of the Year.
48. As above, the respondents do not deal with this point.
49. The rejoinder does not return to the point either.

Discussion

50. The question here is whether it was reasonable to refer to the specific song, elsewhere described as a crossover song, as the Song of the Year.
51. The official SABC statement also relies on the argument that the song is not a Song of the Year, not having been voted on by listeners.
52. On the other hand, the choice of the song is widely seen as an indication of its status as the most popular song on the station and the term Song of the Year has been used several times in news reports. Among groups using the term is the Free State Music Association, which is quoted in the story as demanding an explanation for the station’s choice.
53. In my view, it was not unreasonable to use the term, though the article should have been clearer that it is not an official term.

• Ruling

54. I find that the poster did not breach Clause 10.1 by using the term Song of the Year.

Finding

55. I find that the article breached Clause 1.1 of the Press Code by incorrectly claiming that Mzwakhe Kachela is a member of the Lesedi FM music committee.
56. I find that the article is in breach of Clause 1.7 by publishing unverified claims about what happened in a private conversation.
57. The complaints that the article is otherwise in breach of the Press Code are dismissed for the reasons outlined above.

Sanction

61. Sunday World is directed to correct the report through an editor’s note in the printed edition of the newspaper and posted under the online version of the article.
62. The note’s headline should include the words “correction” and “Motaung”.
63. A line should be added below the headline online, reading “This article has been corrected. See editor’s note, below.”
64. The correction must refer to both points identified in the ruling.
65. The correction should be published both in print and online as soon as is practicable after the expiration of the deadline for appeal
66. The wording and treatment shall be approved by me before publication.

Appeal

67. 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 March 2026