The Mining Qualifications Authority (MQA) and its CEO, Dr Thabo Mashongoane, vs City Press

George Claassen

One of the fundamental principles embedded in the South African Press Code is fairness: how a subject of critical reporting is treated fairly besides any report being accurate and truthful.

On 22 September 2024, City Press published a report about a complaint against Dr Thabo Mashongoane, CEO of the Mining Qualifications Authority (MQA) (https://www.news24.com/citypress/news/mining-qualification-boss-in-hot-water-for-allegedly-kissing-his-cfo-20240922).

Mashongoane lodged a complaint about our report at the Press Council in the same month but City Press was only made aware of the complaint nearly a year later when the then public advocate, Fanie Groenewald, send me as public editor of City Press the following email:

“The complaint was lodged in September last year, but unfortunately got ‘lost’ until the complainants’ lawyer enquired again this Friday.

“I fully appreciate the difficulties having to respond to a complaint a year after the publication of the article complained about. Please accept my sincere apology for the delay.

“The gist of the complaint is that the views of the Mining Qualifications Authority’s CEO was not reasonably sought and the allegations against him were published despite the fact that City Press was aware of a report of the MQA whereby it was found that the CEO did not commit the acts as alleged by the claimant.”

After studying the complaint, I agreed with the complainant that the Press Code was contravened and immediately notified the City Press editors that they should contact Mashongoane to offer him a right of reply, as the Press Code requires in section 1.8:

“The media shall seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication, except when they might be prevented from reporting, or evidence destroyed, or sources intimidated. Such a subject should be afforded reasonable time to respond; if unable to obtain comment, this shall be stated” (my emphasis).

It became a long drawn-out affair as Mashongoane was overseas and indicated that he would respond to City Press once he was back.

In my deliberations with the Press Council, I suggested that City Press would offer the complainant a full right of reply and that the report under contention would be updated accordingly.

Through his attorney Mashongoane notified the Press Council’s present public advocate Thabo Leshilo that he did not accept the offer and that the complaint should be heard by the Press Ombud.

In an agreement with the acting Press Ombud, Dr Johan Retief, City Press publishes this right of reply as set out in the original complaint by Mashongoane.

The MQA and its CEO complained that the:

• headline presented a false, misleading and unverified allegation as a fact (breaching Section 10.1 of the Code). They say that the Board of the MQA’s investigation had already released its finding (in September 1924) that there was no ground for CFO Lebogang Matlala complainant’s accusation – therefore, it was misleading and inaccurate to suggest, in the present tense, that he was at that time in hot water;

• introductory sentence was inaccurate and unfair (in breach of Section 1.1 and 1.2 of the Code).

Mashongoane submits that:

• he was never served with any allegation of creating a toxic work environment; and that the

• article is misleading in that he had already been found to be innocent (the story says he “is facing” those allegations).

Mashongoane complained that the statement that Matlala was informed “that an investigation found no proof of her claims” hours after the newspaper had “reached out to Mashongoane for comment” created a false relationship between a vague WhatsApp message to the latter and the release of the Board’s report (breaching Section 1.1 of the Code). Mashongoane and the MQA say that:

• it is wrong and misleading to imply that MQA had released its report immediately after the newspaper had sent a WhatsApp to the CEO – the two matters had nothing to do with each other; and

• the words “reached out to Mashongoane for comment” are again misleading.

• the statement that the investigation had not been finalised for over a year was out of context, exaggerated, incorrect and it misrepresented the process that the Board followed (breaching Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.7 and 1.8 of the Code). They submit that the

• investigation was conducted properly, with timely feedback provided; and that

•  the MQA appointed a “fact finding inquiry” in September 2023; this was followed by the appointment of a task team, who communicated with both parties during November 2023. In January 2024 Matlala lodged an appeal, which meant the matter had to be reopened. An external investigator was appointed as part of due processes that followed. The eventual findings were communicated to both parties.

•  the statement regarding Matlala’s second grievance complaint “which City Press has seen”, in which she reportedly accused Mashongoane of abusing his power, of a witch-hunt, and of a culture of lawlessness is inaccurate and harmful to his reputation and dignity (breaching Sections 1.1 and 3.3 of the Code). He says he was never served with any such grievance form (the MQA was served with such a document) – and even if there were allegations, he denied that they were true.

• City Press again did not give the MQA a right of reply (Section 1.8 of the Code).

• the statement that the CEO “had used every possible opportunity, especially staff meetings, to ridicule and degrade [Matlala] in front of colleagues” is “entirely false” (breaching Sections 1.1, 1.7, 1.8 and 3.3 of the Press Code). They say that Mashongoane’s conduct was always highly professional.

• the reported statement by Matlala that the CEO had announced that he was in the process of charging her, with the intention of firing her (an attempt that had failed) is false and unverified, and again the reportage has caused him unnecessary harm (breaching Sections 1.1, 1.7, 1.8 and 3.3 of the Code). Mashongoane adds that no such announcement was made.

• the statement that Mashongoane was “yet to respond to requests for comment on the allegations” is false (breaching Section 1.1 of the Code). He says he made clear attempts to engage with the journalist and requested information from him, adding that it is untrue that he was not cooperative.

In light of the above, City Press apologises to Dr Mashongoane and the MQA.

The author is the public editor of City Press.