Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Parliament v Netwerk24/Die Burger

, ,

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint number:  000619

Author: Almari Wessels

Headline: Skatryk sekretaris dalk blyplek kwyt ná eis dat parlement huur betaal (Wealthy secretary may lose his place of residence after demanding that Parliament pay rent)

Publication Date: 7 May 2026

Date lodged: 12 May 2026

Link to story: https://www.netwerk24.com/nuus/aktueel/skatryk-sekretaris-dalk-blyplek-kwyt-na-eis-dat-parlement-huur-betaal-20260506-1240

Particulars

  1. This finding is based on correspondence by Moloto Mothapo, the spokesperson to Parliament, and on a response by Theresa Olivier, the ombud for Netwerk24 and Die Burgert, as well as that of the author of the article, Almari Wessels.

The article

  1. Wessels reported that the basic salary of Xolile George, the Secretary to Parliament, amounted to more than R5 million per year, while his rent reportedly was in arrears to the amount of R244 646.
  2. According to the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI), that owns the premises, George had paid rent until 30 June 2025.
  3. After that date, George insisted that Parliament should pay for his luxurious flat in Sea Point, Cape Town – and, because that did not happen, he was in danger of being evicted from his flat.
  4. The reporter wrote that Mothapo had belatedly said that the amount had been paid, but that he had refused to confirm when it had been refunded. She reported that, according to the DPWI, the rent was still outstanding by May 4.

The complaint

Response only partially reflected

  1. The heart of the complaint is that the article did not reflect the following information, provided to Wessels on May 5:

a. The account was not in arrears;

b. George was not in danger of being evicted; and

c. George had voluntarily settled the outstanding balance – which had been confirmed by the DPWI.

Mothapo states, “Despite this unequivocal clarification, the article proceeded to create the impression that the account remained in arrears and that the Secretary to Parliament faced imminent eviction. The article only included a minimal and dismissive reference to Parliament’s response, stripped of its necessary context and substance … The spirit and purpose of Clause 1.8 (of the Press Code) was undermined because the response was materially disregarded and not fairly reflected.”

No verification

  1. Parliament complains that the journalist did not independently verify its spokesperson’s response with the DPWI as she should have done, according to Section 1.7 of the Press Code.

The reference to the amount of ‘more than R5 million’ was false

  1. The story says that George’s “basic salary” was “more than R5 million.”
  2. Mothapo says this allegation is false and unverified – the amount relates to the total cost-to-employer package disclosed in Parliament’s Annual Report. “This amount includes employer-related benefits applicable to employees generally, including contributions toward benefits such as group life cover, funeral cover and UIF contributions. These are not cash salary benefits and do not constitute (a) ‘basic salary’.”

Misleading, prejudicial framing

  1. Parliament complains that the article “repeatedly employed sensationalist framing designed to create outrage rather than fairly inform the public”. Examples include: “luxurious residential area”; “astronomical R4,6 billion”; “may lose official residence”; and linking unrelated “controversies” to the accommodation matter.
  2. “These descriptions were not necessary for factual reporting and served primarily to prejudice readers against the Secretary to Parliament and Parliament itself. The cumulative effect was unfair, misleading and contrary to the principles of fair and balanced reporting required by the Press Code,” he concludes.
  3. The spokesperson adds that the false statement about George’s basic salary was included purely for sensational effect and to inflame public outrage. As this was not reasonably true, it was in breach of Section 1.3 of the Press Code.

Relief sought

  1. Mothapo asks that a correction and an apology be published in which it clearly states that:

a. the account was not in arrears at the time when Parliament responded;

b. George had voluntarily settled the balance;

c. Parliament’s response was not adequately reflected; and

d. the claim regarding a “salary of more than R5 million” was inaccurate and misleading.

15. He adds that the online article be amended to properly reflect Parliament’s response and the accurate factual position.

Reply to the complaint

Efforts to obtain comment

  1. On 16 March 2026, Wessels e-mailed Parliament in which she inter alia asked:

a. Firstly, could you kindly clarify what his [George’s] total remuneration package was for every year since the STP’s appointment in June 2022?

b. The reason for the above question is conflicting information relayed in parliament’s annual reports: In the 2022/2023 report it says the STP earns R3,177 million; in the 2023/2024 report his remuneration for 2024 is indicated as R6,046 million and lastly in the 2024/2025 annual report it is shown as R5, 039 million for 2024 and R5, 034 million in 2025. Why this discrepancy?

c. In the SALGA annual report for 2021/2022 Mr. George’s total remuneration was reflected as R9,789 million and it is also alleged that he continued to be paid by SALGA for June 2022 and July 2022. Why was that the case?

d. Can you please provide the full breakdown of his total current remuneration package: including all salary components, benefits, allowances, and perks, as required under FMPPLA transparency provisions?

e. Further to the above: Does this total remuneration package include the STP’s stay in 199 Beach Road and if not, what is his monthly rental for the apartment he resides in?

17. Masego Dlula, a media co-ordinator at Parliament, phoned the journalist to say that Parliament won’t respond to her enquiry and referred her to the press statement that had been issued on March 2.

On or shortly after April 9, the reporter phoned Mothapo, who replied that he was “working on it”. However, he did not respond.

On March 24, the journalist lodged a PAIA request to access the full details of George’s remuneration package.

The amount in arrears, eviction imminent

  1. Wessels says her reportage was based on a formal response by the DPWI. “It is clearly in the public interest to determine whether Mr. George’s accommodation is covered by taxpayers in addition to the multimillion-rand salary he earns.”
  2. On April 24, Wessels again e-mailed Mothapo with a list of questions, asking that he respond by Friday, April 30.
  3. She inter alia wrote: “I have previously asked for details of the full pay package of the STP. A document has been leaked to me that indicates the previous speaker of the national assembly wrote a letter to the former minister of public works stating that parliament will bear the costs of the STP’s accommodation in Cape Town. Can you comment on the veracity of this?”
  4. She says Mothapo did not respond to this request.
  5. On the same day, the reporter asked the DPWI on the same matter. On Friday, 30 April, the department asked for an extension to provide full clarity.
  6. Lennox Mabaso, DPWI spokesperson, confirmed on May 5 that George was occupying DPWI accommodation in Sea Point. He stated that George had previously made direct rental payments to the Department, with the last payment received on 30 June 2025 – thereafter, he directed that rental statements be sent to Parliament for payment.
  7. At the time, George’s rental account was in arrears of R244 645.96.
  8. The DPWI advised Parliament that failure to honour the rental arrangement will result in the department initiating eviction proceedings.
  9. Wessels says that, despite Mothapo’s claim of an “unequivocal clarification,” the DPWI has not confirmed that the account has been settled.
  10. “The official statement provided to Netwerk24 on 5 May remains true until proven otherwise,” she concludes.

 

Not enough time

  1. Wessels rejects Mothapo’s assertion that he was only given “approximately four hours” to respond. As the matter was being treated as a breaking news story, time was of the essence. This is how that day developed:

a. At 09:22 on May 6, the journalist e-mailed Mothapo, asking for a response by 14:00.

b. She granted him his request for an extension of two hours.

c. At 16:00, Mothapo asked for another extension of two hours, which was also granted.

d. At 18:13, Wessels telephonically asked him for a response. He said he needed more time.

e. The reporter explained that the story was going to be published on the front page of Die Burger the following day. Mothapo replied that, if his response did not reach the journalist within an hour, “we could publish and indicate that parliament didn’t comment”.

f. At 19:13, Wessels checked her e-mail and WhatsApp messages – Mothapo had not responded and the decision was made to publish without his comment.

g. At 20:00. Mothapo informed her that he had sent a response. This was prominently included in the third sentence[1], Wessels says.

31. “Regarding the claim that the ‘article included only a minimal and dismissive reference to parliament’s response,’ I insist that the unsubstantiated claims made by Mr. Mothapo in this response couldn’t be published as it could not reasonably be true,” she submits.

32. Wessels justifies this decision as follows:

a. Mothapo’s assertion that the settling of the account “has been officially confirmed by the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure” is not true;

b. DPWI has confirmed twice that George was responsible for the rent;

c. It is not reasonably true that the “contractual obligations” changed in June 2025 to make Parliament liable for these payments;

d. Parliament did not dispute that the account amounting to R244 645.96 on 5 May was in arrears – therefore, it could not have been “reasonably true” that George had voluntarily and proactively made rental payments towards his accommodation. “It is impossible to ‘proactively’ settle an account that hasn’t been paid up for ten months,” she argues.

33. It is also not true that Parliament gave a “comprehensive written response” to her, Wessels says. The veracity of the following statements was not provided:

a. George previously made direct rental payments to the Department, with the last payment received on 30 June 2025. Thereafter, he directed that rental statements be sent to Parliament for payment. However, no rental payment has been received from Parliament to date;

b. George’s rental account is now in arrears of approximately R244 645.96; and

c. The Department has formally engaged Parliament on the outstanding payments and has advised that failure to honour the rental arrangement will result in the Department initiating eviction proceedings.

34. The article in question “was solidly in the public interest and compiled truthfully, accurately and fairly,” the journalist says and concludes: “All the assertions made by Mr. Mothapo namely ‘that the account was not in arrears; that no payment was due; that the Secretary to Parliament had voluntarily settled the balance; that the DPWI had confirmed this position; and that engagements between parliament and DPWI regarding future arrangements were ongoing’ remain unsubstantiated.”

35. Wessels notes that the DPWI has since indicated that it was unaware that the account had been settled but will give an answer in due course. She says she has sent questions regarding the follow-up to Mothapo, but he has indicated that he would not be responding.

Failure to properly verify

  1. Wessels rejects this part of the complaint, as she repeatedly communicated with Parliament and the DPWI since March this year.
  2. See her response as documented under Point 16.
  3. When Parliament indicated that they won’t be responding, the reporter lodged a PAIA request on 24 March 2026 to access the full details of George’s remuneration package.

Narrative ‘sensational’

  1. Wessels rejects the claim that “sensationalist framing” was “repeatedly employed” to “create outrage rather than fairly inform the public” as she merely used the written statement from the DPWI depicting the account status of the dwelling that it was in arrears, and that eviction was imminent.

Rejoinder

In general

  1. Mothapo replies that the journalist’s response did not rebut the complaint; instead, it “substantially validates Parliament’s concerns regarding unfairness, predisposition, lack of impartiality, and disregard for the principles underpinning the Press Code”.
  2. He adds that he finds the journalist’s explicit admissions troubling – she consciously disregarded substantive portions of Parliament’s response because she personally believed they “could not reasonably be true”.

Misunderstanding, or deliberate mischaracterization, of the complaint

  1. Mothapo notes that Wessels repeatedly invokes the concept of “public interest” as though Parliament’s complaint seeks to deny the media’s constitutional role or challenge the legitimacy of reporting on matters involving public expenditure and senior public officials.
  2. “This is false. Parliament fully recognises the constitutional role of the media; the importance of investigative journalism; and the right of journalists to report on matters of legitimate public interest… Indeed, Parliament’s original complaint explicitly focused not on whether the matter was of public interest, but whether the article itself complied with the standards required by the Press Code.”
  3. The spokesperson suspects that the repeated use of “public interest” appears to be calculated to avoid confronting the substantive issues raised, namely fairness, contextual accuracy, balance, verification, material omissions, the selective use of responses, and sensationalist framing.
  4. “The Press Code does not exempt journalists from accuracy, fairness and balance merely because a matter is of public interest. To the contrary, the greater the public interest, the greater the obligation on journalists to exercise care, fairness and proper verification,” he concludes.

Conflation of historical stories, irrelevant matters 

  1. Mothapo says a substantial portion of the journalist’s response concerns previous stories, earlier requests for comment, alleged non-responses, a PAIA application, historical salary-related queries, and unrelated investigative themes.
  2. “These matters are irrelevant to the complaint presently before the Ombudsman. The complaint concerns one specific article published on 7 May 2026… Wessels attempts to create an impression that, because she subjectively believes Parliament inadequately responded to previous stories, this somehow validates deficiencies in the story complained of… Every story published by a media house must independently comply with the Press Code.”
  3. He adds that Wessels repeatedly attempts to conflate questions sent to Parliament on 24 April 2026 with the story published on 7 May 2026. “The earlier April queries concerned broader remuneration issues and unrelated matters. To suggest otherwise is misleading and appears intended to artificially construct a prolonged narrative of alleged non-cooperation in order to retrospectively justify the deficiencies in the article complained of. Parliament respectfully submits that this conflation is improper and should be disregarded by the Ombudsman.”

The core issue – Parliament’s comments ignored

  1. Mothapo submits that the central issue in this complaint remains “remarkably unanswered” by Wessels.
  2. Prior to publication, Parliament provided a substantive written response stating clearly that the account was not in arrears, that there was no payment due, that George had voluntarily settled the outstanding balance, and that this had been confirmed to Parliament by the DPWI.
  3. Instead, Wessels relied primarily on information received approximately 24 hours earlier, she disregarded significant portions of Parliament’s response, and she proceeded with publication of a sensational front-page story based on stale information already overtaken by events communicated to her before publication. “This is the crux of the complaint,” he says.
  4. Mothapo submits that the reporter’s admission that she did not publish certain responses by Parliament because they “could not reasonably be true” and were not “substantiated” is extraordinary. “It reveals a deeply troubling misunderstanding of the role of a journalist under the Press Code. A journalist is not entitled to suppress, minimise or selectively omit a response from the subject of critical reportage merely because the journalist personally doubts or dislikes the response. The Press Code … does not permit journalists to appoint themselves final arbiters of truth before publication and discard inconvenient responses accordingly. This admission alone validates Parliament’s concern that the response was not treated impartially or professionally.”

Failure to re-verify updated information

  1. Mothapo says the reporter’s argument that she relied on information that she obtained 24 hours earlier, maintaining that this remained the official version, is fundamentally flawed. “Journalistic verification is not frozen in time. Where a journalist receives new and material information before publication — particularly information directly contradicting an earlier position — the journalist has an obligation to reasonably verify the updated position before proceeding.”
    He adds that Wessels ignored Parliament’s request that she verify the new information with the DPWI.
  2. “Instead, she elected to proceed with a sensational front-page narrative premised on information already overtaken by subsequent developments communicated to her before publication. This is precisely why Parliament contends the story violated the Press Code.”

George’s remuneration  

  1. Mothapo says attempts by Wessels to justify the article’s claim that George earned “more than R5 million” by referring to historical salary queries, annual report and a pending PAIA request misses the point entirely.
  2. The issue is not whether the journalist previously asked questions about remuneration – it is about “whether she exercised sufficient diligence before publishing as fact a sensational and misleading assertion regarding ‘basic salary’.”
  3. He submits that that amount does not constitute a basic salary – in fact, it relates to total cost-to-employer, and it includes employer-related contributions and benefits. See Point 10 in this regard.

Analysis

Public interest

  1. It is not in dispute that the story was in the public interest.

Parliament’s response selectively reported

  1. The heart of the complaint is that Wessels selectively referred to Parliament’s (late) reply to her enquiry. She used the one issued by the DPWI on May 5 but only referred to a part of the one issued by Parliament the next evening.
  2. Note that the content of the second release is materially different from that of the first one.
  3. Let’s look at the two releases. The response (on May 5) by the DPWI that Wessel used as a basis for her article reads as follows:
The Department of Public Works & Infrastructure can confirm that Mr Xolile George is occupying DPWI accommodation in Sea Point. 

Mr George previously made direct rental payments to the Department, with the last payment received on 30 June 2025. Thereafter, Mr George directed that rental statements be sent to Parliament for payment.

Despite statements being sent to Parliamentary officials, no rental payment has been received from Parliament to date.

Mr George’s rental account is now in arrears of approximately R244 645.96.

The Department has formally engaged Parliament on the outstanding payments and has advised that failure to honour the rental arrangement will result in the Department initiating eviction proceedings.

The Department remains committed to ensuring that state-owned residential accommodation is managed properly, that rental obligations are honoured, and that public assets are protected in the public interest.

  1. The response by Mothapo to Wessels on May 6 inter alia reads:
 Parliament wishes to place on record that, as matters currently stand, the account is not in arrears and there is no payment due as alleged. Consistent with the leadership demonstrated by the Secretary to Parliament, he has since made voluntary payments to settle the outstanding account balance. This has been officially confirmed by the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure.

 We note that the questions being raised relate to the accommodation arrangements and obligations arising from the employment contractual arrangements between Parliament and the Secretary to Parliament. Engagements between Parliament and the Department are ongoing to address any future matters relating to this account.

 In the intervening period, and despite Parliament’s contractual obligations as the employer regarding this account, the Secretary to Parliament has through his own voluntary determination, proactively made rental payments towards his official accommodation. This demonstrates his appreciation of the importance of honouring the contractual obligations arising from the official agreement between Parliament and the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure.

 

  1. The crux of the matter is whether Wessels was justified in only reporting that the outstanding amount had been fully paid, but to leave out that George had made voluntary payments to settle the outstanding account balance and that that had been officially confirmed by the DPWI – and that, therefore, eviction was no longer an issue.
  2. Central to the journalist’s decision not to report those pieces of information is her belief that it could not be reasonably true. Note that she omitted central parts of the response not by accident or because of incompetency – she deliberately left information out.
  3. Let me be as clear as possible on this matter: It is not for a journalist to decide which part of an official response is true or not. The essence of a report should be published – and it should be left to the public to decide if it is true or not.
  4. Wessels received new information in the nick of time. Kudos to her for making sure that at least part of that information was used – which, on the other hand, meant there was time enough to include the other salient aspects of the response as well.
  5. Wessels should have published the gist of both accounts and contrasted them. Section 1.9 of the Press Code explicitly says: “The media shall … supplement [a report] once new information becomes available.” In this case, the transgression was even worse – Wessels received new information prior to publication, but she refused to use it.
  6. Also: The media are required to obtain comment from a subject of critical reportage (Section 1.8 of the Code). Because of that, a publication is duty-bound to report the essence of a press release. If not, it makes a mockery of its duty to ask for a right of reply – it is no use to ask for information, but then to refuse to publish it. 

No verification of the DWPI’s response to Parliament on May 6

  1. For the record: Wessels defends herself against the complaint in that she did not verify her information by referring to her attempts to do so since March 2026. With respect, I think she misses the point – I believe Mothapo referred to his correspondence to her at 20:00 on May 5.
  2. Given that time, it would have been impossible for her to have verified that information with the DWPI prior to publication. I therefore do not blame her for publishing the story on the very next day without such verification – she believed it was a breaking story which could not wait for another day. Such is the nature of the beast called the media.
  3. However, she should have stated that verification will have to wait for a day or so and that she would report this once it has been done. Section 1.7 of the Code reads, “The media shall verify the accuracy of doubtful information, if practicable; if not, it shall be stated.”
  4. I also wonder how Wessels could have denied that Mothapo’s assertion that the settling of the account “has been officially confirmed by the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure” – if she had not verified that claim.

George’s ‘basic salary’

  1. I accept Mothapo’s explanation of this matter, as referred to under Point 10.
  2. I note that the documentation provided to Wessels used the words “basic salary” when referring to the amount of “more than R5 million”. This justified her in her reportage.
  3. However, she is now duty-bound to report Mothapo’s explanation.

Sensationalist reporting

  1. I do not agree with Parliament that the reporting was “sensationalist”, as expressed by Mothapo under Point 12 and 13. I would rather buy the publication’s defence (under point 39) that Wessels merely used the written statement from the DPWI “depicting the account status of the dwelling and that it was in arrears and eviction was imminent”.

Proper time to respond not afforded

  1. Wessels sent her request on May 6 at 09:22. That, to my mind, should have given Parliament sufficient time to respond. I also note, with appreciation, that the journalist postponed her deadline twice, as requested.

Finding

Parliament’s response selectively reported

  1. The selective use of Parliament’s response on May 6 is in breach of:

a. Section 1.1 of the Press Code, which requires the media to report truthfully and fairly;

b. 2, which says that the media shall present news in context and in a balance manner … without material omissions;

c. Section 1.9, which requires that new information should be communicated; and

d. Section 1.8, which says that a publication should obtain comment from a subject of critical reportage – and, by implication, publish the essence of such a response.

No verification of the DWPI’s response to Parliament on May 6

  1. Wessels neglected to mention that it was not practicable for her to verify the information. This is in breach of Section 1.7 of the Code.

George’s ‘basic salary’

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed. Because the public is entitled to be informed about this matter as well, I have added Point 85 (d) below.

Sensationalist reporting

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Proper time to respond not afforded

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Sanction

  1. The journalist’s selective use of Parliament’s response on May 6 is a Tier 2 (read: serious) breach of the Press Code. News24 and Die Burger are to apologise to Parliament for neglecting to report essential aspects of Parliament’s response to the questions posed on May 6.
  2. The publications are also reprimanded for neglecting to state that it was not practicable to verify information given by Parliament prior to publication.
  3. The print version of the article should contain an apology and a correction, stating Mothapo’s response that:

a. the account was not in arrears at the time Parliament responded;

b. George had voluntarily settled the balance;

c. Parliament’s response was not adequately reflected in the original article; and

d. the claim regarding a “salary of more than R5 million” was inaccurate and misleading, together with an explanation from both the side of Parliament and of Wessels.

86. The online version should be amended accordingly, together with an apology and a correction and a link to the original article.

87. The above should:

a. 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;

b. be published in print and on all platforms of the publication where the article was published;

c. be published with the apology in the introductory sentence and with a headline including the words “apology” and “Parliament”;

d. refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;

e. end with the sentence, “Visit org.za for the full finding”;

f. be published with the logo of the Press Council; and

g. 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

25 May 2026

 

 

 

[1] Rather, it was included in the third paragraph, which was the fourth sentence.

Related Posts