Moses Mthethwa, the former manager of the CP Nel museum in Oudtshoorn, filed a complaint against the above articles on 21 January 2026.
The Public Advocate, Thabo Leshilo, declined to accept the complaint on the grounds that it was filed too long after publication.
Mthethwa filed an appeal against the decision and an application for condonation of late submission on 23 January 2026. The application included the complaint itself, as well as relevant correspondence, including with the newspaper.
I take into account the various submissions filed in this matter.

The article

The first article reports that a provincial forensic investigation is underway into the finances of the CP Nel Museum in Oudtshoorn, as confirmed by the spokesperson of the provincial Department of Cultural Affairs and Sport. It provides extensive background on claims of difficulties and conflicts involving the museum, including allegations that people hired under the government’s Extended Public Works Programme (EPWP) had not been paid. The complainant appears only as a member of a newly appointed board.
The second article reports that Mthethwa, now identified as the museum manager, has been placed on precautionary suspension pending the forensic investigation. Issues around failure to pay EPWP staff continue, the report says.
A third article is not subject to complaint but is relevant and is mentioned by the complainant. On 2 August 2024, the Oudtshoorn Courant reported that the suspension had been lifted on the grounds of insufficient evidence against Mthethwa (Museum bestuurder se skorsing gelig – Museum manager’s suspension lifted. https://www.oudtshoorncourant.com/News/Article/Local-News/museum-bestuurder-se-skorsing-gelig-202408010257) The report quotes Mthethwa as saying he has received a letter to this effect, as well as confirmation from the provincial Department of Cultural Affairs and Sport. Mthethwa is extensively quoted on the issue of payment of EPWP staff and other disputes around the museum.

The complaint

The complaint is that the two articles breach clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 3.3 of the Press Code, in that they baselessly link Mthethwa to financial impropriety.

Condonation of late submission

At this stage, the only question before me is whether the submission of a late complaint can be condoned.

Arguments

The complainant initially complained against the report of 15 June 2024. The complaint was captured by the Press Council and was being dealt with. However, after the publication of the report of 2 August 2024, the then PA, Fanie Groenewald, informed the complainant that the matter was regarded as resolved.
The complainant writes that he accepted the ruling in good faith and believed that nothing further could or should be done by him.
Shortly after the PA’s decision, his lawyers received a letter from the department confirming that his suspension had had nothing to do with the provincial forensic investigation, which was concerned with the museum as an institution.
In early 2026, a friend alerted him to the fact that online searches for his name continued to link to the various articles around his suspension, causing ongoing harm by linking him to the forensic investigation.
The complainant argues that late submission is justified because he honestly believed the matter had been closed; that the 2 August article did not remedy the problem as it continued to associate him with the forensic investigation; that there is ongoing harm due to the continued availability of the articles online; and in the interests of fairness and justice.
The complainant engaged with the newspaper on the matter in January 2026, asking for an apology and retraction, and for all online articles to be amended. The newspaper declined the request.

Discussion

The Press Council’s Complaints Procedures says in clause 1.3 that complaints shall be filed within 20 working days of publication, adding:

The Public Advocate … may on reasonable grounds accept late complaints if, in his or her opinion, there is a good and satisfactory explanation of the delay.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the complaints mechanism of the PCSA is designed to ensure quick resolution of complaints, and the timelines are necessary to ensure this purpose is achieved (See, among others, the 2^nd appeal decision in Jurie Roux vs News24 (2022)). Exceptions should be made only on good cause. The longer the delay, the better the explanation needs to be, as said by the Chair of Appeals, Judge Bernard Ngoepe in the appeal decision in Spotlight Publications vs Sadmon Projects and Consulting cc (2020).
In this case, the complaint was lodged some 18 months after the publication of the articles complained of.
It would have been open to the complainant to object to the PA’s decision to regard the matter as resolved in August 2024, and if necessary, to appeal against it. He offers no persuasive reason for not doing so.
The complainant also argues that the report of August 2024 did not remedy the breach of the earlier reports as it did not clarify that his suspension was not linked to the forensic audit.
It is not clear why the complainant attaches such importance to this point: the report as published made clear that any allegations against him had fallen away, hence the lifting of his suspension.
Most importantly, however, he failed to act at the time. By his own admission, he regarded the August report as having resolved the matter. He has since revised his view.
The complainant then acted in January 2026 on becoming aware that reports about the suspension persist, and argues the ongoing harm justifies condonation of late submission.
First, it is noteworthy that the first report barely mentions him; the second deals with the suspension and the third highlights that the suspension was lifted. All three would appear in Internet searches, making it clear that the suspension was lifted.
Unfortunately, it is the nature of online publication that it persists. Accepting ongoing availability as grounds for late complaint would open the door to complaints against practically any material published online, rendering the requirements for timeous complaint pointless.
Late discovery of the ongoing availability of the reports does not constitute sufficient reason to condone the late submission.

Finding

I dismiss the appeal for condonation of late submission of the complaint.
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
31 March 2026

Mthethwa vs Outshoorn Courant

Related Posts

Rafik Mohamed and others v Sunday Times/TimesLIVE

Werner Human v News24

News24 vs Maroela Media