Norman Sebaku vs City Press

Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August                              

16 April 2026

Finding: Complaint 32359

Publication (online): City Press

Date of publication: 22 August 2025

Headline:

RTMC CEO challenges suspension, says board overstepped its mandate

https://www.news24.com/citypress/news/rtmc-ceo-challenges-suspension-says-board-overstepped-its-mandate-20250822-0806

Author: Sthembiso Lebuso

Particulars

This finding is based on a written complaint by Mr Norman Sebaku; a written reply by then Public Advocate, Mr Fanie Groenewald; a written response by Mr Sebaku; a written reply on behalf of City Press by News24’s Public Editor, Dr George Claassen; and a further written response by Mr Sebaku.

Complaint

The complainant submits that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.8, 1.10, 2.1 and 2.2 of the Press Code. Based on the information in the complaint, I have added Clauses 1.4 and 1.7 as well.

1. Summary of article

1.1. According to the article, Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC) CEO Makhosini Msibi approached the Pretoria High Court with an urgent application to overturn his precautionary suspension.

1.1.1. Msibi was suspended on 1 July 2025 after the RTMC board cited “allegations of misconduct that include fraud, corruption and wasteful expenditure”.

1.1.2. However, he argues in his founding affidavit that the RTMC board acted unlawfully and claims that it lacks the statutory power to suspend him.

1.1.3. Msibi contends that, in terms of the Road Traffic Management Corporation Act, only the shareholders’ committee – comprising the Transport Minister, provincial MECs and local government representatives – has the authority to appoint, suspend or discipline the CEO.

1.1.4. He says the board may only exercise such powers if explicitly delegated in writing by the committee. He states that the board failed to produce any such evidence despite repeated requests.

1.2. Msibi’s affidavit further notes that an investigation by the law firm Lawtons Africa, which was commissioned by the board, examined several tenders but found no evidence of any procurement irregularities, fraud or corruption.

1.2.1. While its report identified “systematic weaknesses” in the RTMC’s bid committees, it cleared Msibi of any wrongdoing.

1.2.2. Msibi adds that the Auditor-General was provided with “whistleblower allegations” during the 2024/25 audit and also found no evidence of fraud or misconduct. The RTMC reportedly received a clean audit.

1.3. Msibi suggests that the complaints stem from two officials with whom he previously clashed over disciplinary issues. One official is reportedly engaged in a labour dispute and faces a police fraud case related to his salary, while the other was investigated by the State Security Agency (SSA) for undisclosed business interests.

1.3.1. He alleges that both individuals have a “score to settle” and are engaged in a “transparent stratagem to tarnish my name”.

1.4. Msibi brought an urgent application to have his suspension set aside on multiple grounds under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.

1.4.1. In addition, he asks the court to nullify the board’s appointment of an “interim CEO” on the grounds that the Road Traffic Management Corporation Act makes no provision for such a role.

2. Arguments

Norman Sebaku

2.1. The complainant starts off by requesting condonation of his late complaint in view of the fact that he sought to resolve the matter directly with the publication between 12 and 25 September 2025.

2.1.1. He says he pursued “an amicable and professional engagement” during this period with the expectation that the matter could be addressed through a retraction or an apology without any need to escalate it.

2.1.2. However, he believes the publication engaged in bad faith even though he suspects that it was aware of “the 22-working-day limit” that applies to lodging a complaint with the Press Ombud.[1]

2.1.3. In the circumstances, he submits that the delay is minimal and is adequately explained. He says the interests of justice strongly favour condonation and that dismissing the complaint on a technicality would allow the publication to benefit from “bad-faith conduct” and deny him the right to a fair hearing.

2.1.4. He therefore requests that condonation be granted.

2.2. The complainant then goes on to submit that the article in question violates Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.8, 1.10, 2.1 and 2.2 of the Press Code.

2.2.1. He states that the claim that the affidavit was obtained from public court records is false and contends that this amounts to deliberate misrepresentation and reliance on “deceptive or unauthenticated sourcing”.

2.2.2. In addition, he argues that the article contains false and defamatory allegations concerning him and that it was published without verification, context or affording him a right of reply.

2.3. The complainant submits that the article published damaging and untrue claims and cites the following as examples: “The other gentleman, Mr S[e]baku was investigated by the State Security Agency and found to be doing business and receiving money without [the] requisite disclosure. This necessitated that disciplinary process[es] be undertaken against him” and “The complaints from the so‐called whistle blowers started surfacing shortly after these officials underwent and were [to be] subjected to disciplinary processes from the RTMC.”

2.3.1. He denies that he was ever investigated by the SSA or subjected to any RTMC disciplinary process. He adds that, on 14 January 2025, he was granted top security clearance by the SSA, “which directly contradicts the allegations of misconduct”.

2.3.2. He submits that the statements in point 2.3 are false and defamatory, and caused serious harm to his reputation and dignity.

2.4. The complainant maintains that the same false allegations appear in Msibi’s founding affidavit filed at the Pretoria High Court.

2.4.1. He adds that he lawfully accessed these documents on 25 August 2025 through the Office of the Chief Registrar. Until then, he says, no media entity was authorised to view the affidavit through official court channels.

2.4.2. While the original court affidavit bears a court stamp, he says that the version used by the publication does not bear such a stamp, “proving it was not a true copy from the court file”.

2.4.3. Despite this, he says that News24’s Public Editor, George Claassen, persists in maintaining that the excerpt was obtained from court records. He rejects this as false and asks how the publication obtained a version of an affidavit that was not yet publicly filed or stamped by the court.

2.4.4. Furthermore, he asks why it published defamatory claims from the affidavit without a right of reply despite its “questionable provenance”.

2.5. The complainant states that he lodged a complaint with News24 editor-in-chief Adriaan Basson, who then referred the matter to Claasen. He says the latter denied his assertions and demanded evidence from him.

2.5.1. In response, he submitted documentary proof on 15 September 2025. He says Claassen acknowledged receipt, but adds that there was no meaningful or substantive engagement between 15 to 24 September 2025.

2.6. The complainant maintains that the article was false and misleading in relation to him, omits full context, sensationalises the allegations and denied him an opportunity to respond before publication despite the serious nature of the allegations. He adds that the respondent refused to correct or retract the article despite proof of its inaccuracy.

2.6.1. Furthermore, he again rejects the claim that the affidavit was obtained from public records as false and says it amounts to deliberate misrepresentation. He argues that, under South African law, reporting privilege applies only to what transpires in open court.

2.6.2. He says that, at the time of publication, the matter had already been withdrawn twice from the urgent court roll (7 August and 21 August 2025) and that no hearing was pending at the time. He believes that “publication based on leaked or unauthenticated documents cannot be shielded by privilege”.

2.7. As a result of the article and subsequent non-compliance, the complainant submits that his integrity and reputation have been severely damaged. In addition, he says he has suffered emotional distress and public harm.

2.7.1. He requests the Press Ombud to order a full retraction of the allegations and a prominent apology. In addition, he requests a written explanation on how the respondent obtained a version of the founding affidavit before it was officially filed.

Public Advocate

2.8. In his reply, the Public Advocate refers to the article and to the complainant’s correspondence with News24’s Public Editor.

2.8.1. He agrees with Claassen that the complainant was not named in the article and points out that the paragraphs which are the subject of complaint are, in fact, from Msibi’s affidavit that was published as a link to the article.

2.8.2. While the Public Advocate fully appreciates the complainant’s objection to Msibi’s allegations, he states that this should be taken up with Msibi and not City Press.

2.9. The Public Advocate adds that it was not necessary to seek the complainant’s views prior to publication because he was not mentioned in the article.

2.9.1. He further states that filed court documents are accessible to the media – “even unsigned/unstamped copies of such filed documents”.

2.9.2. In light of the above, the Public Advocate says he cannot find any prima facie breach of the Press Code in the article and declined to accept the complaint.

2.9.3. He informed the complainant that the Press Council’s Complaints Procedures allow him to request the Press Ombud to adjudicate his complaint when the Public Advocate declines to accept it.

Norman Sebaku

2.10. The complainant then duly requested the Press Ombud to adjudicate his complaint.

2.10.1. He repeats his point that the article contained an image of an unsigned and unstamped affidavit “purporting” to be part of a High Court application by Msibi. He states that this document named him and attributed false and defamatory allegations to him.

2.10.2. He says the Public Advocate concluded that he “was not named in the article” and that the paragraphs in dispute came from a link to Msibi’s affidavit (see point 2.3). He regards this as “partly correct but materially misleading” and says the issue is the purpose behind its use.

2.10.3. He says the article embedded a hyperlink to an unsigned and unstamped affidavit that identifies him. He submits that this triggered an ethical and legal obligation to seek a response from him.

2.10.4. He believes the link was intentionally used to expose his name “while simultaneously avoiding the procedural requirement to obtain a comment from me”. He submits that the intent to harm and to avoid accountability is evident.

2.10.5. He argues that it is essential to distinguish between a bona fide hyperlink provided for context and a hyperlink used with mala fide intent “to disclose sensitive, defamatory, or private material”.

2.10.6. Furthermore, he says, media privilege applies only to fair and accurate reporting of publicly accessible court proceedings. Since the affidavit was uploaded to the restricted Court Online system, it was not available to the media or the general public. As a result, he suggests that it is legally untenable to rely on “court access” to justify publication.

2.10.7. He submits that, while the Public Advocate’s reliance on the notion that court documents are accessible to the media is technically correct, it is flawed because it fails to take into account the ethical and legal obligation to assess purpose, context and intent.

2.10.8. In summary, he submits that the Public Advocate failed to verify certain facts, namely the procedural status of the case (point 2.6.2), restricted access to court documents (point 2.4.3) and the respondent’s intent (points 2.10.4).

2.10.9. In light of the above, the complainant requests the Press Ombud to set aside the Public Advocate’s decision to decline his complaint and to adjudicate the complaint on its merits.

City Press

2.11. The respondent notes that the complainant initially lodged his complaint about the article with News24’s Public Editor on 12 September 2025.

2.11.1. However, after extensive communication, the complainant declined to accept the response of the publication and declared that he would take his complaint to the Press Council.

2.11.2. The publication states that there are two issues at stake: firstly, the complaint was not accepted by the then Public Advocate because it was late and, secondly, the complainant said he was mentioned in the article and this damaged his reputation because “the alleged reference to him” reflected negatively on him and was incorrect.

2.12. The respondent then proceeded to outline the communication between the complainant and the publication.

2.12.1. In his complaint dated 11 September 2025, the complainant claims that the article contains false and defamatory allegations about him and was published without consulting him or affording him a right of reply.

2.12.2. In particular, the complainant referred to two paragraphs (see point 2.3). He dismissed both of these allegations as false, misleading and defamatory (see point 2.3.1).

2.12.3. He said he was never investigated by the SSA, was never subjected to any RTMC disciplinary process and was granted top security clearance by the SSA on 14 January 2025 – “a fact that the CEO of RTMC should have been aware of”.

2.12.4. He added that these claims were published without being verified and without affording him a right of reply.

2.13. The complainant stated that these same falsehoods appear in Msibi’s founding affidavit filed at the Pretoria High Court.

2.13.1. He said it was incumbent on the respondent to explain how it obtained access to this founding affidavit and why the defamatory claims in it were reported without giving him a right of reply.

2.14. The respondent says it replied on 15 September 2025 and informed the complainant that the article was based on court documents filed by Msibi as an urgent application to overturn his precautionary suspension by the RTMC.

2.14.1. Regarding the two paragraphs referred to by the complainant, the publication pointed out that these were not contained in its article and asked him to indicate where he found them. It said his name was not mentioned in Msibi’s urgent application either.

2.14.2. It informed him that, even if the complainant’s name was mentioned in the court documents, it would not have been necessary to give him a right of reply “as this is not required with regard to ongoing court cases as City Press could be charged with contempt of court”.

2.14.3. Only after a judgment was made by the court, it told him, could the publication have reported on this and given him a right of reply.

2.14.4. It informed him that the court is a privileged environment and that the media can report from filed documents and proceedings in court without being accused of defaming any parties involved in a court case.

2.14.5. It added that Msibi’s affidavit was filed in court and that, since it is a public document, it could be accessed by the media as part of South Africa’s transparent judicial proceedings.

2.15. Regarding the complainant’s request for condonation of a late complaint, the respondent said it was clear from the beginning that the complainant did not want to accept any explanation and could also not prove that he was mentioned in the article.

2.15.1. It says it supports the Public Advocate’s decision not to condone the lateness of the report and denies that it was the fault of the publication.

2.15.2. The respondent states that, based on the above, it does not regard the complaint as valid. It says the complainant was not mentioned in the article and that, despite its request that he provides proof that he is, he has not done so.

2.15.3. It adds that, even if his name was mentioned in the court documents to which the article refers, it was still within its legal rights to reflect the contents of such documents. It therefore requests that the complaint be rejected.

Norman Sebaku

2.16. In his reply to the respondent, the complainant states that his response must be read together with his original complaint and his request for adjudication.

2.16.1. He states that the publication raises two main defences: firstly, that his complaint was late and should not be condoned and, secondly, that he was not mentioned in the article and therefore suffered no reputational harm.

2.17. The complainant rejects both defences.

2.17.1. He says the article was published on 22 August 2025 and that he lodged a complaint directly with City Press on 11 September 2025.

2.17.2. He adds that he communicated with News24’s Public Editor between 11 and 25 September 2025 in an attempt to resolve the matter amicably (see points 2.1 and 2.1.1). Only after that process failed, he says, did he escalate the matter to the Press Council.

2.17.3. He says the respondent now contends that his complaint should not be condoned and denies that it acted in bad faith.

2.17.4. However, he submits that his engagement with the publication demonstrates diligence on his part and contends that it would be unfair to penalise him for initially attempting to resolve the matter amicably.

2.18. According to the complainant, the respondent’s primary defence is that his name

was not mentioned in the article. He dismisses such a defence as artificially narrow and says the article includes a hyperlink to Msibi’s affidavit, which names him and attributes serious misconduct to him.

2.18.1. He contends that the publication must be assessed holistically: “In digital journalism, a hyperlink is not external to the article – it is an editorial device intentionally incorporated into the publication.” He says it invites the reader to consult and to rely on the linked material.

2.18.2. As such, he claims, the test of the reasonable reader requires the publication to be evaluated as a whole, “including incorporated material”. He argues that the respondent fails to engage with this aspect of his complaint.

2.19. The complainant also rejects the respondent’s assertion that he did not prove that he was “mentioned”. He says he furnished screenshots and extracts on 15 September 2025 that demonstrate the existence of the hyperlink and that he was named in the affidavit along with serious allegations.

2.19.1. He says the respondent does not address these annexures and merely repeats that his name does not appear in the article. He argues that this does not answer his complaint, which

concerns “publication by incorporation”.

2.20. The complainant reiterates his argument that Clause 1.8 of the Press Code requires that serious allegations regarding an individual should be put to that individual before publication.

2.20.1. He rejects the respondent’s claim that, even if his name did appear in court documents, it was not necessary to offer him a right of reply because the matter involved court proceedings.

2.20.2. He maintains that this “misstates” both the Press Code and the privilege that jurisprudence attaches to fair and accurate reporting of proceedings in an open court. He says the urgent application was withdrawn from the court roll at the time of publication and was not being heard in court.

2.20.3. He further argues that the publication relied on an affidavit and not on court proceedings. He believes the Press Code does not exempt publications from Clause 1.8 merely because allegations appear in court papers.

2.20.4. He again refers to the following allegation in the affidavit: “… Mr S[e]baku was investigated by the State Security Agency and found to be doing business and receiving money without the requisite disclosure.”

2.20.5. He repeats his claim that he had already been granted SSA security clearance in January 2025 – several months before the article was published.

2.20.6. Had the respondent sought his comment, he says, he would have furnished proof of his security clearance. He argues that relying on the existence of an affidavit “does not displace the duty of reasonable verification”.

2.21. The complainant submits that the respondent does not substantiate its assertion that filed court documents, including unsigned copies, are accessible to the media. He says the

affidavit was not stamped and was not ventilated in court at the time of publication (point 2.10.1).

2.21.1. He again notes that Court Online access is restricted to an authorised user (point 2.10.6). He says that, unlike the respondent, he furnished confirmation of his authorised access.

2.21.2. He adds that the respondent does not address the withdrawal of the urgent application prior to publication either.

2.22. The complainant again refers to the hyperlink to Msibi’s affidavit in the article published on 22 August 2025. He maintains that the respondent’s reliance on the absence of his name in the article “does not negate the reputational effect of the linked material”.

2.22.1. He adds that the respondent does not address “[w]hether a hyperlink forms part of the publication for purposes of identification”, whether the allegations in the affidavit were independently verified and why “no contextual limitation accompanied the affidavit link”.

2.22.2. He submits that the response of the publication rests on “a segmented reading” of the article.

2.23. In conclusion, the complainant requests the Press Ombud to condone “any alleged lateness” in the interests of fairness. He also maintains that “the publication, read holistically, identified” him.

2.23.1. He further calls on the Press Ombud to determine that the publication failed to comply with Clause 1.8 and that relying on an unstamped affidavit without verifying it failed the standard of reasonableness.

2.23.2. In addition, he calls for appropriate relief and refers specifically to publication of a right of reply or an apology.

3. Discussion

3.1. The first issue that needs to be addressed is the complainant’s request for condonation of a late complaint on the grounds that he initially sought to resolve the matter directly with the respondent (point 2.1).

3.1.1. To this end, he engaged with the respondent between 12 and 25 September 2025. He lodged his complaint with the Press Council on 26 September 2025 when his interaction with the respondent did not produce an outcome that satisfied him.

3.1.2. Although this was 24 working days after publication of the article in question, it would be unreasonable to penalise the complainant for submitting his complaint just four days after the 20-working day period prescribed in the Press Council’s Complaints Procedures – especially in view of the fact that he initially took up the matter directly with the respondent.

3.1.3. In any case, the respondent is mistaken in stating that the then Public Advocate did not accept the complaint because it was late (point 2.11.2). In fact, he declined to accept the complaint because he could not find any prima facie breach of the Press Code in the article (point 2.9.2).

3.1.4. However, the complainant persisted with his complaint and submitted a formal request to the Press Ombud’s office to adjudicate it. The matter was then forwarded to me for adjudication.

3.2. Secondly, although the complainant claims that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code, it would be more appropriate to discuss some aspects of the complaint in relation to Clause 1.4.

3.2.1. Furthermore, the complainant contends that the article is in breach of Clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of the Press Code. However, since he does not provide any information to substantiate these claims, these aspects of the complaint have been disregarded.

3.2.2. For the record, it must also be stated that Clause 1.10 only applies when a publication is found to be in breach of the Press Code.

3.3. Thirdly, it must be noted that, in fact, the complaint relates to an affidavit that was included as a hyperlink in the article published on 22 August 2025 and not to the content of the article itself (my emphases).

3.4. Clauses 1.1 and 1.2: The complainant questions the use of the hyperlink in the article and the reason it was used (points 2.10.2 and 2.10.4). He believes the respondent’s intention was to cause harm to him and, at the same time, to avoid being accountable.

3.4.1. This is sheer speculation; the complainant does not provide any evidence to support his claim that there was an ulterior motive behind the publication of the affidavit. It is therefore unclear why the publication would seek to portray him in a negative light by way of a hyperlink in an article.

3.4.2. In any event, it must be emphasised that Msibi is the subject of the article – not Sebaku. The latter was not even named in the article.

3.4.3. The hyperlink to the affidavit is no more than a supplementary device: it provides a link to the affidavit on which the article is based. To read anything more into the use of the hyperlink without any supporting evidence is to engage in pure conjecture.

3.5. Clause 1.4: The complainant questions how the publication obtained a version of Msibi’s affidavit when it was not yet publicly filed or stamped by the court (points 2.4.3 and 2.10.1).

3.5.1. Nevertheless, even though the affidavit in the hyperlink is not stamped or signed, the complainant does not dispute its contents. In fact, he acknowledges that the two sentences that he quotes as being at the centre of his complaint are exactly the same as in the affidavit that is linked to the article (see point 2.4).

3.5.2. What the complainant does question – repeatedly – is how the publication obtained the affidavit that it published.

3.5.3. While there is no evidence that the affidavit was obtained improperly, the Press Code does allow for situations in which public interest takes precedence over other considerations such as whether the document was obtained fairly or legally.

3.5.4. Since Msibi is a public official and the RTMC is responsible “for all aspects of road traffic management across the various levels of government in South Africa”,[2] publication of his affidavit was certainly in the public interest and therefore complies with Clause 1.4 of the Press Code.

3.6. Clause 1.7: The complainant further argues that the article contains false and defamatory allegations concerning him and that these were published without any verification or any context (points 2.2.2 and 2.22.1).

3.6.1. However, the article itself does not name or contain any allegations against the complainant. He must therefore be referring to the two sentences in Msibi’s affidavit that he quotes in point 2.3.

3.6.2. It is unreasonable, though, to expect the respondent to verify information contained in an affidavit. Msibi’s affidavit is part of an application before a court of law and is therefore now part of legal proceedings.

3.6.3. As such, investigating the contents of the affidavit may be construed as undermining the administration of justice and risk being in contempt of court. It is therefore illogical to expect the respondent to pursue such a line of enquiry.

3.6.4. In any event, as both the Public Advocate and the respondent reminded the complainant, the court is a privileged environment and the media is allowed to report on court documents and proceedings.

3.6.5. Although the complainant acknowledges that this is “technically correct” (point 2.10.7), he argues that it fails to take into account ethical and legal obligations regarding context and intent.

3.6.6. This argument is not only irrelevant but also pure speculation. It attempts to ascribe ill intent to the respondent’s publication of the affidavit without providing any evidence.

3.6.7. After all, as noted above, it is Msibi who is the subject of the article – not the complainant. And, as pointed out earlier, the hyperlink to his affidavit is merely a supplementary device.

3.7. Clause 1.8: The complainant also complains that he was not approached for his response to the contents of Msibi’s affidavit (points 2.2.2, 2.10.3 and 2.20.1).

3.7.1. As previous Press Ombud findings have noted, there is no obligation on the media to seek comment on court documents. For example, then Deputy Press Ombud Herman Scholtz states in Siyabonga Gama vs Sunday Times: “… [M]y view [is] that Clause 1.8 is not applicable to reportage on privileged occasions or documents …”[3]

3.7.2. Former Press Ombud Johan Retief expressed a similar view previously in Tuwani Mulaudzi vs The Sunday Independent: “The … story reported on court documents – which it was justified to do, without asking [the complainant] for comment.”[4]

3.7.3. Furthermore, it must again be pointed out that the complainant in the current complaint was not named in the article and that the two sentences at the centre of his complaint were contained in Msibi’s affidavit.

3.7.4. And while the complainant’s objections to certain aspects of Msibi’s affidavit are noted, this matter is best left to the court to deliberate for the reasons stated in points 3.6.2 and 3.6.3.

4. Findings

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 are dismissed (see the reasons set out in points 3.4 to 3.4.3 of my Discussion).

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.4 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.5 to 3.5.4 of my Discussion.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.7 is dismissed (see the reasons set out in points 3.6 to 3.6.7 of my Discussion).

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.7.1 to 3.7.4 of my Discussion.

Appeals procedure

The Complaints Procedures stipulate 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

Tyrone August

Deputy Press Ombudsman

16 April 2026

[1] The deadline is, in fact, 20 working days.

[2] https://www.rtmc.co.za

[3] https://presscouncilsa.org.za/2021/06/16/siyabonga-gama-vs-sunday-times/

[4] https://presscouncilsa.org.za/ 2014/10/16/tuwani-mulaudzi-vs-the-sunday-independent/