Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

KSP Group v City Press

, ,

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint: PCSA 00049

Author: Norman Masungwini

Headlines, dates of publication, dates of complaint:

  • Municipal boss abandons winning court case for controversial R156 million deal; published on 23 November 2025; complaint lodged on 10 February 2026
  • Treasury threatens to cut funding to corrupt Rustenburg municipality; published on 30 November 2025; complaint lodged on 10 February 2026
  • Connected by Greed: Dodgy R480 m vehicle tender scandal exposes web of corporate corruption; published on 21 December 2025; complaint lodged on 10 February 2026

Links to stories:

Particulars

  1. This finding is based on a written complaint by Narisha Hansraj Attorneys at Law, on behalf of KSP Group, a written response by the assistant editor of City Press, Rapule Tabane, and by its internal ombud, George Claassen, as well as a written reply by Narisha Hansraj Attorneys at Law.
  2. On 22 December 2025 KSP sent a letter of demand to City Press, setting out various reasons why the third article should be removed and an apology rendered to the complainant. The newspaper refused to do so, arguing that the report was not unlawfully defamatory (see Section 1.12 of the Press Code) and that it was based on court documentation.
  3. Following this, the complaint was sent to the Press Council.

The articles

  1. All three stories are about a disputed vehicle settlement agreement in which KSP was contracted to deliver 304 vehicles, including tractors, construction vehicles and bakkies, to Rustenburg Local Municipality (RLM).
  2. The first article says that the manager of the municipality, Ashmar Khuduge, “has controversially withdrawn a potentially winnable court case by entering into a R156 million settlement with KSP Group without obtaining a council resolution, a legal opinion or following proper procedures, potentially violating several provisions of the Municipal Finance Management Act and the Municipal Systems Act.”
  3. The second story reports that the Auditor-General has publicly contradicted Khuduge’s claims that his office had endorsed a proposed out-of-court corruption settlement agreement between KSP and RLM. It adds that National Treasury has invoked constitutional powers to withhold December funding to the municipality “over persistent financial management breaches”. The latter had to do with “systematic procurement fraud in fleet management services, deliberate overpayments exceeding market value and a municipal leadership that appears determined to reward rather than punish those responsible for bleeding public coffers dry.”
  4. The third report says that court papers reveal an overcharge of R254 million, while the municipality also has bypassed competitive bidding.

The complaint, relief sought

The first article

  1. KSP complains the statement that documents dated 10 October 2024 show that Khuduge had engaged in discussions with the group is untrue.
  2. It says no final settlement was concluded in October 2024 – and it is not unusual or suspicious that court matters are removed from the roll pending settlement negotiations.
  3. KSP adds that it is not coincidental that the article was published two days prior to when council was scheduled to deal with the matter – it says this smacks of “an agenda” on the part of the newspaper.
  4. It calls the article “inaccurate” and “defamatory”.
  5. KSP complains that the article is in breach of the following sections of the Press Code:
    • 4: “The media shall obtain news legally, honestly and fairly, unless public interest dictates otherwise”
    • 10: “The media shall make amends for presenting inaccurate information or comment by publishing promptly and with appropriate prominence a retraction …”
    • 11: “The media shall prominently indicate when content that was published online has been amended or an apology or retraction published.”
  6. KSP asks for an apology, for a right of reply, and for the immediate removal of the third article.

The second report

  1. KSP complain this article incorrectly states that “RLM spent more than R480 million” on an irregular vehicle fleet and that it had “more than R300 million to pay for the deal and their legal fees” – it says the municipality paid R141,426,946.52, while the tender value was approximately R400 million.
  2. It adds that the R141 million plus the settlement fee of R55 million amount to a total of R196 million.
  3. The group says that this article is in breach of the same sections of the Press Code mentioned under point 12 above.
  4. KSP adds that it is not coincidental that the article was published three days prior to when council was scheduled to deal with the matter – it says this smacks of “an agenda” on the part of the newspaper.
  5. It asks for the same relief that is mentioned under point 13 above.

The third story

  1. KSP complains it is false to have stated or insinuated that:
  2. it, Rise Now Trading 34 (RNT) and Umkhonto Professional Services (UPS) shared the same directors, same address, same fraud, and that they allegedly colluded to fleece the RLM through irregular tender awards worth millions;
  3. Pasugen Govender was a director of UPS, and that Yashna Rabikissoon was a director of RNT – they never were;
  4. the reference to “same fraud” is defamatory to all concerned, and that it should have been presented as an allegation, rather than as a fact;
  5. the three companies had been charged with criminal offences; and
  6. court papers detail how the companies submitted falsified financial guarantees that were forged and not issued by the purported financial institutions. No evidence has been provided in this regard.
  7. KSP remarks that Council was scheduled to meet on 22 December 2025 and the article appeared the day before.
  8. The group says that this article is in breach of the same sections of the Press Code mentioned under point 12 above. To this, it adds Clause:
  • 3: “The media shall present only what may reasonably be true as fact; opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such”; and
  • 6: “The media shall identify themselves as such, unless public interest or their safety dictates otherwise.”
  1. The group asks for the same relief that is mentioned under point 13 above.

City Press responds

  1. The newspaper replies that its reporting was based on court documentation, that it was factually accurate and that the matter was in the public interest (as taxpayers’ money was involved).
  2. On the amounts of R480 million and R300 million, the court documents say: “The budgetary concerns … there was no approved budget for the expenditure of R480,000,000 (four hundred and eighty million Rand), which was the total value of the transaction.” The newspaper says the R480 million represents the total transaction value, not actual payments.
  3. Also in court documentation: “The public purse was overcharged by an amount exceeding R254 million.”
  4. On Govender’s and Rabikissoon’s directorship: “Kantharuben Govender … is directly linked to RNT and UPS. Specifically: “He is a director of RNT. He certified the tender documents of UPS as a ‘commissioner of oaths’.”
  5. Also: “The companies KSP Group (Pty) Ltd, Rise Now Trading 34 (Pty) Ltd, and Umkhonto Professional Services (Pty) Ltd share the same premises at 191 Beyers Naude Road, Rustenburg … [the] companies have common directors and staff, indicating a direct link between their operations and management.”
  6. On the complaint that there was no evidence supporting fraud allegations: Both UPS and RNT are alleged to have submitted fraudulently created financial guarantees purporting to come from financial institutions such as Fusion and FNB. Investigations revealed that these guarantees were forged and not issued by the financial institutions they claimed to represent.
  7. Also: “The supplementary affidavits delivered by the Rustenburg Local Municipality … confirm that there were elements of fraud and forgery in the bid documents submitted by these entities.”
  8. On KSP’s disputing allegations of forged financial guarantees: “An investigation revealed that the financial institutions purportedly issuing these guarantees (Fusion and FNB) did not issue them. The guarantees were found to be forged and fraudulently presented to the RLM.”
  9. On the statement of uncontested evidence: “These supplementary affidavits and the evidence of fraudulent guarantees were not contested by RNT or UPS. Neither party filed affidavits to dispute the allegations or the findings of the investigations.”
  10. City Press denies that the articles were published to prejudice legal proceedings. It argues: “We reported accurately and fairly from court documents and the complainant’s filing response in court was extensively quoted as a matter of principle, to balance our reporting, and to ensure their voice is heard. This requirement of the Press Code that a subject of critical reporting’s voice should be reflected in reports, was diligently applied.”

KSP replies

  1. The complainant mainly takes issue with the newspaper’s response to the complaint that there were allegations of forged financial guarantees. It argues that there was no evidence to back it up and concludes that it was “patently false”.
  2. The group also argues that the matter is not uncontested, as claimed by City Press, as KSP itself is contesting the matter.
  3. The group asks for the exact pages and paragraph numbers of the court documents “of which they have appeared to quote”, as “a perusal of the court documents do not, in certain instances, serve as confirmation that City Press did in fact find the quotation in the form in which it has sought to reply to our complaint to your office.”
  4. City Press has not quoted or referred to the response of the KSP Group in the court papers.
  5. The newspaper elected not to report on an expert report provided at the request of the municipality by one Dr Boshoff, a professional valuer, who has reflected that total overpayment to the three related entities amounted to much less.
  6. The newspaper did not refer to the affidavits by the directors of the various entities, and it did not give any of those individuals a right of reply.
  7. The allegation that UPS and RNT have submitted fraudulently created financial guarantees is not supported by court documentation.

Reduction

  1. It is KSP who has lodged this complaint, not the municipality, UPS or RNT. I also have no proof that KSP has a mandate to complain on their behalf. Therefore, I am limiting my analysis and finding to those aspects that are relevant to KSP.
  2. I have made two exceptions to the above because of the potential importance of those matters.
  3. I can also not consider those aspects raised by KSP’s rejoinder where it raised new issues since the newspaper did not have an opportunity to respond to those issues.
  4. Examples of such instances can be found under Points 19 (with reference to the other two entities) and 37-39.
  5. The reference to “uncontested” issues in the newspaper’s reply was not mentioned in either of the articles or in the complaint – hence, that matter is also off my table.

Analysis

The first article

  1. The statement in question reads: “Documents dated 10 October 2024 show Khuduge engaged in discussions with KSP Group and accepted a settlement offer without council approval.”
  2. According to the complaint, the fact of a settlement agreement is not in dispute, and neither is the statement that Khuduge acted without council approval – only the date of the agreement is in question.
  3. The complaint is that no final settlement was concluded in October 2024.
  4. City Press does not respond to this part of the complaint.
  5. Unfortunately, the copy of the settlement agreement at my disposal is not dated – therefore, I have no way of deciding whether the reported date is correct or not.
  6. However, while it is true that the press should aspire to report accurately, the date when the agreement was reached really is much of a muchness.

The second article

  1. The statements in dispute are that the RLM “spent more than R480 million on an irregular vehicle fleet” and that it had “more than R300 million to pay for the deal and their legal fees” – KPS says the municipality paid R141,426,946.52, while the tender value was approximately R400 million.
  2. The newspaper’s clarification that the amount of R480 million represents the total transaction value, and not actual payments, is also stated in the story. I have checked the actual court records, and I can confirm that that is correct.
  3. That being the case, City Press in fact admits that it was wrong to report that the municipality had “spent” more than R480 million on the vehicle fleet.
  4. I note that the legal fees are not included in the amount of R196 million. I also consider that the municipality’s legal fees have nothing to do with KSP (which is why I have not enquired what those fees are).
  5. On the amount of “more than R300 million” that had to be paid for the deal (plus legal fees): According to court documentation at my disposal (in 1.13.3 and 1.13.4, page 15 of KSP v RLM, Case Number UM108: 2019) RLM was over-charged with more than R254 million, and RLM over-paid KSP by R87 million. This makes the reference to “more than R300 million” reasonable.

The third article

The same directors

  1. KSP complains it is false to have stated or insinuated that it shared the same directors, address and fraud with UPS and RNT and that they allegedly colluded to fleece the RLM through irregular tender awards worth millions;
  2. According to the court documentation at my disposal (Case Number 108/2019 in the matter between KSP v RLM, dated 16/08/2023, Point 1.10), Govender was a director of RNT and that he was “directly linked” to UPS. It also states that Govender did not deny the correctness of the direct links between himself, RNT and UPS (Point 1.11).
  3. This means that it is justifiable to report that the companies “shared” the same directors.
  4. However, the court documentation does not specifically say that Govender was a director of RNT (as stated in the third article) – which is what the article states. This boils down to an assumption or a conclusion which is not based on evidence.

Same address

  1. According to the article, the three companies shared the same business address at Unit 5, Block B.7 Holwood Park, Canegate Road Umhlanga, KZN and also operated from shared premises at 191 Beyers Naude Road, Rustenburg.
  2. These statements are indeed made in court documents. See Point 4.8.3 under the headline, Associated Matters.

Same fraud

  1. The complaint is that the articles presented fraud as a fact and not as an allegation:
    1. The first article does not do so;
    2. The third story does present it as an allegation and not as a fact. For example, it mentions “at the heart of this alleged corruption scandal…”; and: “allegations of outright fraud and document falsification”; and: “the alleged corruption has attracted attention…”; and: “affidavits appear to show that bid documents submitted by (UPS) and (RNT) contained ‘elements of fraud and forgery’.”; and
    3. However, the second report is less careful. For example, the journalist reports the issue as a “scandal”, and not as an alleged scandal. The same goes for the word “fraud”. For example: “The scandal centres on systematic procurement fraud in fleet management services, deliberate overpayments exceeding market value…”
    4. As KSP was involved in this alleged scandal, I need to make a finding on this matter.

Allegedly colluded

  1. Court documentation states that the three entities conceded that they were “related” (Case umber M432/2019 in the case in the matter between KSP and RLM, dated 22 August 2023, point 5.10). It also appears that the director of KSP made submissions on behalf of RNT. Also, they were jointly involved in a court case.
  2. This, to my mind, justifies the use of the word “colluded” – especially because the court mainly found against them. I also take into consideration that the word “allegedly” was used in this case.

Not charged with a criminal offence

  1. I find this part of the complaint quite puzzling, as the group was involved in a court case which was all about fraudulent actions.

An agenda

  1. KSP complains that all three articles were published shortly before the municipal council was due to meet and concludes that this points to an agenda on the part of the newspaper.

This complaint is without merit – the newspaper merely published its articles timely. Besides, the content of the articles is of overwhelming public interest.

Not reporting the other side

  1. Even though the complainant only mentions in its rejoinder that City Press has never quoted or referred to the response of the KSP Group or any of the individuals concerned and does not do so in its complaint, I nevertheless deem it important to comment on that.
  2. This is simply not true – the third article gives extensive attention to their affidavits and court presentations.
  3. Also, KSP argues that the third article should have mentioned Dr Boshoff. Well, the court has discredited him. It is no wonder that the newspaper did not mention him.

In general

  1. For the record, and apart from the statement about Govender’s directorship, I note that the newspaper has correctly quoted from the relevant court documents. For example:

70.1: “Both UPS and RNT are alleged to have submitted fraudulently created financial guarantees…” – This is indeed stated under the headline “Convenience and Prejudice”, Point 5.10; and

70.2: “Investigations revealed that theses guarantees were forged…” – This comes from Point 1.13.1 under the heading, “The Relevant Background”.

Finding

First article

  1. There is no finding on the complaint that the agreement was finalised on 10 October 2024.

Second article

  1. The statement that RLM “spent” R480 million, is inaccurate and in breach of Section 1.2 of the Press Code that reads: “The media shall take care to report news … accurately…”

The rest of this complaint is dismissed.

Third article

  1. The complaint about the use of the same address is dismissed;
  2. The statement that Pasugen Govender was a director of KSP is unfounded and in breach of Section 1.1 of the Press Code that says: “The media shall take care to report news … accurately…”;
  3. The complaint that the stories portrayed fraud as a fact and not an allegation, is upheld with regards to the second article only. This is in breach of Section 1.3 of the Press Code that states: “… allegations … shall be presented as such”
  4. The rest of the complaint is dismissed.
  5. The complaint about having an “agenda” is dismissed.

An agenda

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Not reporting the other side

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Sanction

City Press is:

  • directed to apologise for:
    • the incorrect statement that the RLM “spent” R480 million on the matter;
    • portraying the allegation of fraud as a fact in the second article: and
  • reprimanded for stating as fact that Govender was a director if KSP.

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 all platforms of the publication where the articles were published;
  • be published with a headline including the words “apology” and “KSP”;
  • refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
  • end with the sentence, “Visit presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”;
  • be published with the logo of the Press Council; and
  • be approved by me.

Appeals procedure

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 Ombud

10 April 2026

 

Related Posts