Sonia Mbele v Daily Sun

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint:  PCSA 000525

Publication name: Daily Sun and @celebgossip.co.za

Author: Ngwako Malatji

Headline: EXCLUSIVE: Top actress’ ‘muthi’ scandal!

Publication Date: 22 February 2026

Date lodged: 24 February 2026

Link to story: https://www.snl24.com/dailysun/celebs/ex-safa-boss-advocate-leslie-sedibe-accuses-ex-wife-tv-actress-sonia-mbele-of-allegedly-bewitching-him-20260222

 

Particulars

1. This finding is based on a written complaint by Sonia Mbele, a written response by the deputy editor of the Daily Sun, Doreen Molefe, and a written reply by Mbele.

The article

2. The story is about former South African Football Association (Safa) chief executive officer advocate Leslie Sedibe, his estranged wife, Faith Nevhutalu, and his ex-wife, TV actress Sonia Mbele (the complainant).
3. The first two sentences of the article aptly summarise what the story is all about, and what gave rise to Mbele’s complaint: “… Sedibe has allegedly claimed that (Nevhutalu) told him … Mbele has used muthi on him. Leslie allegedly told his allies that… Nevhutalu claimed Sonia used muthi on him.”
4. This was repeated on an Instagram post.

Mbele’s Compliant

5. Mbele complains that the article was in breach of the following articles of the Press Code for publishing those statements:

Art. 1.1: The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly

The statements in dispute are those quoted above under point 3.

Art. 1.2: The media shall present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarization

The statement in question: “It’s alleged that when he arrived from Limpopo, Leslie found Faith’s suicide note, in which she fingered him as the reason she wanted to take her life. He said Faith stated that she saw … Sonia with muthi in previous days.”

Art 1.3: The media shall present only what may reasonably be true as fact; opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such.

The disputed statement: “The same source said Leslie told them Faith inferred that Sonia was using muthi on him.”

Art 1.4 The media shall obtain news legally, honestly and fairly, unless public interest dictates otherwise.

The statement: “Leslie allegedly told his close allies that his estranged wife Faith Nevhutula, claimed Sonia used muthi on him.”

Art 3.3: The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation, which may be overridden only if it is in the public interest

The statement: “The mole alleged that Faith objected and accused Leslie, who is now a practicing attorney, of still having an extramarital affair with his son’s mum (read: Mbele).”

Art 10.1: Headlines, captions to photographs and posters shall not mislead the public and shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report or photograph in question.

6. Mbele complains that the matter did not concern her as the story was about Sedibe and Nevhutula – and yet she got inaccurately and unfairly dragged into it.
7. She asks for a retraction and an apology since the article implies that she used witchcraft to influence Sedibe regarding his marriage to Nevhutula.

Daily Sun responds

8. Daily Sun asks that the complaint be dismissed.
9. The crux of its response is that the article did not accuse Mbele of witchcraft as fact (it was consistently presented as allegations) and that her denials were included verbatim – providing readers with a balanced account and avoiding distortion or misrepresentation.
10. The newspaper adds that:

• its information was provided by sources close to Sedibe;
• it was in possession of the alleged suicide note referenced in the article – even though it received the note after publication, the paper was satisfied that it indeed existed before including details from it. Besides, it was also presented as an allegation and not as fact;
• the article presented the matter in context as part of a domestic dispute involving public figures which placed the matter within the realm of public interest;
• by reporting allegations in the context of a domestic dispute and including the complainant’s denial, the article served the public interest in informing readers about matters of societal concern (read: gender-based violence – GBV);
• the article did not use the word “witchcraft”; and
• the use of quotation marks around the phrase “muthi scandal” in the headline indicated it was an allegation and not an established fact – which made the headline reasonable.

Mbele replies

11. Mbele replies that the newspaper did not respond to some issues; instead, they responded to matters that she did not raise.
12. She argues that the onus rests upon the publication to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she used muthi to destroy Sedibe’s marriage to Nevhutula.
13. She insists that this was defaming her character and damaging to her reputation.
14. She emphasises that she does not have access to Sedibe’s house and that she does not even know what Nevhutula looks like.
15. She also points out that she did not complain about a suicide note.
16. She says the newspaper’s reference to GBV is nonsensical and that she did not mention it in her submission. She reckons that, instead, the article itself might have made her a victim of GBV.

Analysis

17. The crux of the matter is whether Daily Sun has breached the Press Code by publishing the allegation that Mbele had used muthi on Sedibe to destroy his marriage with Nevhutula.
18. It is true, as the newspaper says, that the article did present the words in question as an allegation and not as a fact.
19. However, the mere fact that it was presented as an allegation is not a guarantee that it was reasonable to publish it. Newspapers should be careful not to publish an allegation just because someone has made it – especially if it is likely to harm a person’s dignity and reputation and if there is no sufficient substance to it.
20. It needs no debate that the article was likely to harm Mbele’s dignity and reputation.
21. The next issue, then, is the credibility of the source. The allegation in question came from Nevhutalu.
22. She is far from an independent source. Given the fact that she and Sedibe had marital problems, it is not out of the question that she simply made up the allegation to put the blame for that on Mbele – especially because she accused him of having an extramarital affair with his ex-wife.
23. There is no proof whatsoever, of any kind, that Mbele did use muthi to influence her ex-husband.
24. This raises serious questions as to how reasonable it was for the newspaper to have published the allegation in question.
25. The newspaper’s argument that it based its information on “sources close to Sedibe” is also highly questionable. It does not clarify who those sources (plural) are, but from the context it is clear to me that the answer lies in the second sentence of the article: “Lesley allegedly told his close allies that his estranged wife, Faith Nevhutalu, claimed Sonia used muthi on him.” (own emphasis)
26. This is pure hearsay – Nevhutalu allegedly made this claim, she told Sedibe about it, who in turn told his “allies”. These allies were not even second-hand sources, they were third-hand “witnesses” – who were on top of that most likely compromised by their friendship with Sedibe.
27. Given the seriousness of the allegation, it was irresponsible and unjustified for the newspaper to have relied on such sources.
28. I am also inclined to believe Mbele’s defence that she had no personal contact with Sedibe (except for text messages). In that case, how reasonable is it to believe that she could have used muthi on him?
29. Regarding the allegation that Sedibe and Mbele still had an extramarital affair: The article said the source for this allegation was “close to the estranged couple” (read: Sedibe and Nevhutalu). Again, this “information” came from a secondary source, whose independence, reliability and credibility are in question.
30. Regarding the statement by the source “close to the estranged couple” that Nevhutalu stated that she saw Mbele “with muthi in previous days” again is secondary information. Besides, even if she did see her with muthi, it does not necessarily mean that she had used it on Sedibe.
31. The use of quotation marks in the headline points to an allegation – the same allegation that was unacceptable in the article.
32. I also note that the quotation marks are only used for the word “muthi”, but not for “scandal” (unlike the newspaper says in its response to the complaint). This creates the unfair impression that the “scandal” could have been a fact.
33. On the other hand, I grant the newspaper its view that the people in question were celebrities and that it was therefore justified to put the matter in the public domain.
34. However, the precondition for that is that the article should have been prepared in accordance with acceptable journalistic practices – which it was not.
35. Kudos also for properly publishing Mbele’s right of reply.
36. Some matters were not part of the complaint, such as a suicide note and GBV. I am therefore not dealing with them.

Finding

37. The article unfairly used secondary sources whose credibility were in question because:
    • they were not sufficiently independent;
    • their information was not reasonably true; and
    • their information was based on hearsay.
38. This cause unnecessary reputational damage to Mbele’s reputation.
39. The reportage is therefore in breach of the following articles of the Press Code:
    • 1.1: “The media shall take care to report news … fairly”;
    • Art 1.2: “The media shall present news … in a balanced manner”;
    • Art 3.3: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation, which may be overridden only if … the facts reported are true or substantially true and it was reasonable for the information to be communicated because it was prepared in accordance with acceptable principles of journalistic comment”; and
    • Art 10: “Headlines … shall not mislead the public…”
40. The specific sentences which are relevant to this finding are:
    • “Former South African Football Association (Safa) chief executive officer Advocate Leslie Sedibe has allegedly claimed that his estranged wife told him his ex-wife and TV actress Sonia Mbele has used muthi on him.”
    • “Leslie allegedly told his allies that his estranged wife, Faith Nevhutalu, claimed Sonia used muthi on him.”
    • “The same source said Leslie told them Faith inferred that Sonia was using muthi on him.”
    • “The mole alleged that Faith objected and accused Leslie, who is now a practicing attorney of still having an extramarital affair with his son’s mum (read: Mbele).”

Sanction

41. Daily Sun is directed to apologise to Sonia Mbele for publishing the allegation, both in the article and in the headline, that she used muthi on Leslie Sedibe and that she still had an extramarital affair with him – as well as for the reputational harm that the reportage caused her.
42. The newspaper is also directed to retract the statements in dispute.
43. The above should:

• be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed or, in the event of such an application, after that ruling;
• be published in print and on Instagram with a link to the original article;
• be published with a headline including the words “apology” and “Mbele”;
• refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
• end with the sentence, “Visit org.za for the full finding”;
• be published with the logo of the Press Council; and
• be approved by me.

Appeals procedure

44. The Complaints Procedure stipulates 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

Johan Retief

Acting Press Ombudsman

1 April 2026