Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Niqui Galaktiou Inc and Nicqui Galaktiou v amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism

, ,

Complaint: Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint number: 000596

Author: Susan Comrie

Headline: Delinquent soccer club boss seeking to revive $1bn gas deal with PetroSA

Publication Date: 26 March 2026

Date lodged: 28 April 20267

Link to story: https://www.news24.com/business/companies/amabhungane-delinquent-soccer-club-boss-seeks-to-revive-1bn-gas-deal-with-petrosa-20260325-1054

Particulars

  1. This finding is based on correspondence by the lawyer, Nicqui Galaktiou, and Sam Sole, amaBhungane’s editor.

The article

  1. The article reports that businessman Shumani Mulaudzi signed a R20-billion infrastructure deal with PetroSA in December 2023 through his company Equator Holdings to fund and build gas pipelines.
  2. However, only four months later, Equator Holdings was liquidated after failing to pay a R725 000 debt owed to a First Division soccer player.
  3. Mulaudzi later claimed in court that he knew nothing about the liquidation proceedings, saying the papers were improperly served at an old address and that he only discovered the case after reading an amaBhungane article in July 2024.
  4. It is alleged that Mulaudzi’s sworn explanation was false. Court records reportedly indicate that he was aware of the liquidation case and may have misled the court to avoid liquidation. When those efforts failed, he allegedly negotiated a financial settlement with the soccer player and liquidators. This led to the reversal of Equator Holdings’ liquidation in October 2025.
  5. The article also said that key figures involved, including Mulaudzi, PetroSA, Nicqui Galaktiou Inc (at the time Mulaudzi’s lawyer) and the soccer player, have refused to discuss the matter publicly. This raised questions about transparency and accountability surrounding the deal.
  6. A picture of Galaktiou accompanied the article.

The disputed references to Galaktiou

  1. The complaint is about the following references to Galaktiou and her company:

a. “‘The winding up of [Equator Holdings] was set aside by the High Court on 23 October 2025’, Mulaudzi’s lawyer, Nicqui Galaktiou, confirmed to us in December. But when we asked for a copy of the judgment, Nicqui Galaktiou Inc – notorious among journalists for their aggressive defence of their clients – went quiet”; and

b. “They weren’t the only ones ducking accountability: from Mulaudzi to the soccer player and PetroSA, no one wanted to talk about this case.”

   9. In addition, Galaktiou complains about the use of her picture.

The complaint

In general

  1. Galaktiou complains that the article contains gratuitous, inaccurate and prejudicial references to her and her company that are factually misleading, that they constitute unfair and unjustified comment and that it has caused serious reputational harm to her law firm.
  2. The following is more specific.

‘Notorious’

  1. Galaktiou says the word “notorious” is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “famous for something bad” and is understood as being negative – it signifies disreputable, scandalous and undesirable behaviour or crime and carries an unmistakable pejorative sting. It conveys to the reasonable reader that her company is known for improper or unethical conduct.
  2. She submits that no factual basis for such an insinuation is provided, no source is identified and no example is cited to back up the use of the word in question.

‘Aggressive’

  1. This word, Galaktiou says, is defined as “showing anger and a willingness to attack other people” – and it is applied to characterise her company’s professional conduct as improper. This, she argues, is “misleading, professionally ignorant and designed to cast legitimate legal representation in a negative light”.

The combined use of these words

  1. The combination of the words “notorious” and “aggressive” in one sentence, Galaktiou submits, is not accidental. It is a malicious, egregious and a calculated editorial device to predispose the reader against her company, to undermine its credibility and to frame its conduct as inherently suspicious.

‘Went quiet’

  1. Galaktiou complains that the statement that her company “went quiet” is objectively false and contravenes Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
  2. She motivates:
  3. During 17 to 27 November 2025: amaBhungane sent queries to her company. She promptly responded, advising that, notwithstanding other urgent matters, instructions would be sought the next day whereafter a response could be provided;
  4. On 29 November 2025: Her firm responded, conveying that its client did not wish to engage owing to a reasonable concern that any publication would be distorted and unfair;
  5. On 15 and 17 January 2026: Upon a follow up enquiry, her firm again responded, advising that it no longer represented Mulaudzi, furnishing his contact details and expressly requesting that the firm be excluded from any intended publication; and
  6. On 20 January 2026: She personally contacted Comrie via WhatsApp voice note, reiterating that she no longer represented Mulaudzi, that his instructions were that pleadings are not disseminated, but that she personally had no objection to court papers being shared as they were public documents.
  7. Galaktiou points out that amaBhungane has acknowledged that it was informed that her company no longer represented Mulaudzi. “This concession alone destroys the ‘went quiet’ narrative,” she argues.
  8. The phrase “went quiet” is not merely inaccurate, she submits – it is calculated to create the false impression of evasiveness and concealment by her and her company. This is particularly egregious given that the court papers do not relate to her at all, “providing no logical basis for any suggestion of concealment”.

‘Ducking accountability’

  1. This phrase, Galaktiou states, conveys to the reasonable reader that her company had something to account for and that it was deliberately avoiding doing so. This is “factually incorrect and defamatory,” she submits.
  2. She adds it is common cause that her company was not a party to the underlying transaction, not implicated in any alleged misconduct, and not a subject of the investigation. Its role was that of legal representative only.
  3. Grouping her company with the primary subjects of the investigation creates a false equivalence, suggesting a shared obligation to account for. This was a deliberate failure to reflect the context, which renders the statement materially misleading and thus in contravention of Articles 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code, she argues.

A picture of Galaktiou

  1. Galaktiou says the publication of her picture is unjustified, misleading and prejudicial and is in contravention of Articles 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code.
  2. She submits, “The photograph creates a direct and unavoidable visual association between (her) and the allegations of impropriety that are the subject of the publication. There is no legitimate editorial justification for its inclusion as (she) is not a subject of the investigation and played no role in the conduct under scrutiny. Its use serves solely to amplify the prejudicial narrative constructed in the surrounding text.”
  3. She adds that amaBhungane failed to obtain her consent to the use of her photograph “in this context”. It is trite that the media shall exercise care and consideration in matters concerning the dignity, privacy and reputation of individuals, particularly where they are not subjects of the story, with reference to Section 3.3 of the Press Code, she argues.
  4. She says that the inclusion of her photograph in a context that creates a misleading impression of wrongdoing constitutes a breach of media ethics because it falsely associates her with alleged misconduct.
  5. Read together with the description of her firm as “notorious”, the allegation that it “went quiet”, and the statement about “ducking accountability”, the publication of her photograph “compounds and entrenches the prejudicial narrative, causing direct, material and entirely avoidable reputational harm to [her]”.

Relief sought

  1. Galaktiou requests a published prominent apology and retraction, the wording of which must be acceptable to her, her firm and/or the Press Council.

Reply to the complaint

In general

  1. Sam Sole says that the complainants are not the focus of the investigation and are not directly alleged to have engaged in any wrongdoing.
  2. He submits that, in addition to the provisions relied upon by Galaktiou, Clause 7 of the Press Code is relevant as it provides that the media “shall be entitled to comment upon or criticise any actions or events of public interest” and that “comment or criticism is protected even if it is extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it is without malice, is on a matter of public interest, has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true, and is presented in a manner that it appears clearly to be comment”.
  3. The editor adds that the article was manifestly in the public interest as it concerned the conduct of a businessman who had secured a R20-billion contract with a state-owned entity, the circumstances surrounding the liquidation and resurrection of his company, and a highly critical draft internal audit report by PetroSA.
  4. Galaktiou’s role in the events reported on, including the authorship of letters to PetroSA and the firm’s engagement with amaBhungane during the investigation, “formed a legitimate and relevant part of the narrative…”

‘Notorious’

  1. Sole argues that the word “notorious” is not inherently scornful – the Merriam-Webster Dictionary offers two definitions: “generally known and talked of” (a neutral usage) and “widely and unfavourably known” (a negative usage).
  2. Galaktiou’s contention “that the word can solely be interpreted in a negative light is accordingly unfounded,” the editor argues.

‘Aggressive’

  1. Sole points out that, on The Lawyer Network1 and Quicklist2, Galaktiou’s company says it adopts an “aggressive approach” when it considers it strategically appropriate to do so.
  2. Moreover, Galaktiou herself stated: “We are known to be tough opponents. We are known to take on the most complex and challenging cases because we have a record, a success rate that is well known in the industry. We always consider the theme at the firm to be the Art of War, and it definitely applies in all litigious environments. My favourite saying is to appear weak when you are strong and strong when you are weak … And when we litigate, we will litigate unapologetically and be tough. For us, it’s like a game of chess. You always want to be the one to say checkmate.”
  3. On top of that, the imagery on Galaktiou’s company’s website reinforces this persona, where she inter alia appears with a Japanese sword and multiple times feature photographs of Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” or quotations therefrom.
  4. Galaktiou’s picture on her WhatsApp profile picture is also of her wielding a Japanese sword.
  5. Sole submits that Galaktiou has “intentionally and explicitly cultivated an image of herself and [her company] as being tough and aggressive when defending clients – which would include when these clients are approached by journalists – as amaBhungane has experienced”.
  6. He gives two such examples and adds that it can provide more, if required.
  7. Besides, he adds, it is clearly protected comment as it is without malice, it is on a matter of public interest, it has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true, and it appears clearly to be comment (with reference to Clause 7 of the Press Code).
  8. Sole concludes that the above-mentioned considerations justified amaBhungane in its use of the word “aggressive”.

‘Went quiet’

  1. amaBhungane sets out a timeline of interactions with Galaktiou between November 2025 and January 2026.
  2. Sole says:

a. On 17 November 2025, Comrie asked Galaktiou whether a rescission application had been brought to overturn Equator’s liquidation. She confirmed that the application had succeeded and the liquidation hadbeen set aside;

b. The journalist requested copies of the court papers and judgment on 18 and 24 November 2025, but she received no response;

c. Meanwhile, amaBhungane also sent questions to Mulaudzi regarding a separate investigation into Equator’s National Skills Fund proposal. Galaktiou’s company eventually stated on 29 November 2025 that Mulaudzi would not comment because he believed any article would be unfair and misleading;

d. In January 2026, amaBhungane again requested both comment and the rescission papers; and

e. Galaktiou responded that she no longer represented Equator and directed amaBhungane to Mulaudzi. She also refused to provide the case number or court papers, saying she was acting on Mulaudzi’s instructions, despite acknowledging the documents were public court records.

45. The editor argues that these events justified its statement that the complainants “went quiet”. It says the phrase accurately reflected their failure to respond to repeated requests for the rescission papers while they were still acting for Mulaudzi.

46. Sole submits that Galaktiou was willing to confirm that the liquidation had been overturned, but unwilling to disclose court papers that allegedly exposed contradictions in her client’s version.

47. amaBhungane further contends that Galaktiou’s reluctance was unusual because, after it had originally reported on Equator’s liquidation, one would expect her to have quickly provided documents overturning the liquidation so that the reporting could be updated. The delay in correcting or updating media reports risk spreading inaccuracies, damages public trust, and exposes journalists to legal complaints, the editor argues.

48. Sole ads that Galaktiou did not obtain instructions from Mulaudzi until 27 November 2025 – yet she failed to respond to requests for the court papers from 18 November onward.

49. This was significant, he argues, as those papers allegedly included a settlement agreement in which Mulaudzi admitted that Equator traded as Tshakhuma Tsha Madzivhandila Football Club and owed money to the player – this contradicted his affidavit and earlier claims made to PetroSA, and it confirmed that amaBhungane’s previous reporting was accurate.

50. Sole says that Galaktiou knew about this settlement agreement because she had filed it as part of court proceedings. The journalist argues that, although Galaktiou quickly informed amaBhungane that the liquidation had been overturned, she withheld the court documents that allegedly showed that her client may have lied under oath and that false claims had been repeated to PetroSA.

51 On that basis, amaBhungane argues that:

a. its description that the complainants “went quiet” was factually accurate or substantially true;

b. any negative inference drawn was justified by the facts; and

c. the statement constituted protected comment under the Press Code because it was made without malice, it concerned a matter of public interest, and it was based on facts that were true or reasonably true (again referring to Clause 7 of the Press Code).

‘Ducking accountability’

  1. amaBhungane says Galaktiou’s claim that her responses were ignored is inaccurate. It says the article already reflected Thembelihle Shabalala’s statements (a colleague of Galaktiou), including confirming that her company no longer represented Equator, and that earlier comments about unfair reporting had been quoted in a previous article. After being directed to contact Mulaudzi, Sole says amaBhungane sent him further questions about the rescission application but received no reply.
  2. Sole admits the article did not mention Galaktiou’s voice note explaining she had been instructed not to provide the case number or court papers. However, he argues this does not excuse the refusal because Mulaudzi was allegedly no longer her client at the time. Besides, its request involved only public court information, not confidential material.
  3. The editor rejects the allegation that the article implied “guilt by association”. It says the paragraph merely grouped together people who declined to discuss the case, including an allegedly innocent soccer player, and that reasonable readers would understand the complainants were simply attorneys acting for Mulaudzi.
  4. Sole submits the phrase in question was fair comment because:

a. Galaktiou informed journalists that the rescission application had succeeded but refused to help obtain the court papers; and

b. they unusually requested that their firm not be mentioned in the article.

56. amaBhungane argues this showed awareness of reputational risks linked to their association with Mulaudzi, which was a matter of public interest.

57. In conclusion, Sole maintains that the statement does not breach the Press Code because the underlying facts were true or substantially true. It also argues that it qualifies as protected comment under Section 7 of the Press Code because it was made without malice, concerned a matter of public interest, and was clearly presented as opinion rather than fact.

The photograph

  1. amaBhungane argues that the publication of Galaktiou’s picture was justified. It says the graphic containing the photograph, heading, subheading, and extracts from letters was presented neutrally: the heading was harmless, the subheading accurately reflected the content, and the photograph was neither manipulated nor degrading.
  2. Besides:

a. the image was publicly available on Galaktiou’s website and used in the same editorial manner as photographs of other individuals mentioned in the article;

b. Galaktiou had authored letters to PetroSA, attempting to stop the cancellation of Equator’s contract, despite allegedly knowing that Equator was already under the control of liquidators and that she had lacked authority to act for the company. The letters repeatedly stated that Equator considered the agreement valid and enforceable;

c. it was accurate to report that Galaktiou had repeated Mulaudzi’s claim that the wrong company had been liquidated (which was later contradicted by a settlement agreement signed by Mulaudzi himself); and

d. Given Galaktiou’s role in the events reported on, including the authorship of letters to PetroSA and the firm’s engagement with amaBhungane during the investigation, it was “proportionate and appropriate to include the publicly available photograph of [Galaktiou] in that context”.

60 On privacy and dignity, AmaBhungane argues that journalists may publish photographs of lawyers or spokespersons in the same way they publish names, particularly in matters of public interest. Sole notes that Galaktiou is a prominent attorney with a significant public profile who has appeared in media publications and broadcasts, and whose website contains multiple professional photographs. He rejects the claim that media consent was required before using a publicly available professional image.

61. Sole concludes that the graphic fairly reflected the article’s contents and that any limited privacy concerns were outweighed by the public interest and the substantial truth of the reporting.

Rejoinder

‘Aggressive’ – in isolation

  1. Galaktiou withdraws the complaint about the word “aggressive” as far as it is used in isolation. She recognises that her website uses similar language to describe its litigation approach.

‘Aggressive’ + ‘notorious’

  1. That having been said, when the word “aggressive” is coupled with “notorious”, she says it operates as an aggravating intensifier “that compounds the pejorative sting of the latter. The two cannot be severed from each other for analytical purposes.”

‘Notorious’

  1. While Sole cites a neutral definition from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Galaktiou points out that that dictionary itself offers both a neutral and a negative definition.
  2. However, she argues that the real issue is not which dictionary definition is theoretically available, “but how the reasonable reader would have understood the word in context”.
  3. In popular parlance, she continues, the word carries a negative connotation, with synonyms such as “infamous”, “ill-famed” and “flagrant”. She argues, “No reasonable editor would publish ‘the notorious Nelson Mandela’ to mean he was widely known.”
  4. To put it the other way around: A firm can legitimately and proudly describe itself as “aggressive”; no firm will portray itself as “notorious”.
  5. Galaktiou points out that the letter that Sole refers to, to establish robust advocacy, was written in 2018. “This is a significant overreach. A single letter written 8 years before the current publication does not constitute the widespread community-held negative perception that the word ‘notorious’ denotes,” she argues.
  6. Even worse, the words “among journalists” make the allegation more, not less, damaging – as suggested by Sole. “For a law firm whose practice includes media law, this characterisation is particularly injurious,” she says.

Article 7 – Protected comment

  1. Regarding Sole’s references to Article 7 as a defence: Galaktiou says that, for comment to be protected, it must inter alia have “taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true”. She argues that a single letter from 2018, not published in the article and not available to the reader, does not constitute a fair account of the material facts underlying the sweeping reputational allegation.
  2. “The protected comment defence therefore fails,” she concludes.

‘Went quiet’

  1. Galaktiou says the words in dispute are not a reasonable characterisation of the documented exchange – Sole’s own chronology records at least six substantive engagements between the parties between 17 November 2025 and 20 January 2026. See Point 44 in this regard.
  2. She emphasises that she responded to initial queries on the same day they were received. Her office sent a formal response on 29 November 2025 and responded again on 17 January 2026. She herself sent a WhatsApp voice note on 20 January 2026. “This is not going quiet,” she comments.
  3. Galaktiou reiterates that she had explained before publication that the papers were withheld because of her client’s instructions, not due to concealment or evasiveness.
  4. She rejects Sole’s argument that her client’s instructions may no longer have been binding after the mandate ended – confidentiality obligations survive the end of a professional relationship, making amaBhungane’s reasoning speculative and legally unfounded, she concludes.

‘Ducking accountability’

  1. Galaktiou maintains that those words are defamatory and that they are not protected comment. She contends that the phrase creates guilt by association by grouping the law firm with individuals and entities linked to alleged fraud, dishonesty, and procurement irregularities.
  2. Besides, she continues, the wording implies her company had an obligation to account for wrongdoing and had deliberately avoided doing so, which is misleading and damaging to its reputation. She maintains that there is a material difference between declining comment on behalf of a client and “ducking accountability,” with the latter carrying a defamatory implication.
  3. Galaktiou points out that her company was not a subject of the investigation, it was not involved in the disputed transactions or proceedings, and it merely acted on its client’s instructions. It had already communicated its client’s position, confirmed termination of its mandate, and directed amaBhungane to the appropriate party. Accordingly, the statement falsely suggested evasive conduct where none existed.

The picture

  1. Galaktiou says the use of her picture was not neutral but, instead, it reinforced a prejudicial narrative. When viewed in context, the photograph linked her to allegations of concealment and wrongdoing – the article described her firm in negative terms such as “notorious,” “gone quiet,” and “ducking accountability,” making the image part of her more than a simple illustration.
  2. She insists that this specific use was unjustified because it created an unfair association with misconduct; she also says Sole has failed to explain why her photograph was in the public interest, especially since the article itself conceded that neither she nor her firm was the focus of the investigation.
  3. Referring to a longstanding history between the two parties, Galaktiou contests that the article was not “without malice”. She submits that the publication of her picture served an ulterior purpose, rather than a legitimate editorial one.

Relief sought

  1. Galaktiou maintains the relief sought in her original complaint.
  2. In particular, she says she seeks a ruling that the:

a. word “notorious” was unsubstantiated, pejorative and in contravention of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code;

b. phrase “went quiet,” in was materially misleading and in contravention of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Code;

c. phrase “ducking accountability” was false, unfair and in contravention of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Code; and

d. use of her photograph was unjustified and in contravention of Clauses 1.2, 1.3 and 3.3 of the Press Code.

84. She requests a published, prominent apology and retraction in wording acceptable to her and/or to the Press Council.

Analysis

Clause 7.2 of the Press Code – Protected comment

  1. This sub-clause reads as follows: “Comment or criticism is protected even if it is extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it is without malice, is on a matter of public interest, has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true, and is presented in a manner that it appears to be comment.”
  2. Sole uses this clause to (partly) justify amaBhungane’s reportage; Galaktiou makes use of the same clause to motivate why the editor’s argument does not hold water. This means that both accept that Clause 7.2 is applicable in this case.
  3. I need to say this upfront – Clause 7 is not applicable as it pertains to opinion pieces or editorials only and not to news reports. Look again at the last few words of that sub-clause: “… and is presented in a manner that it appears to be comment.” This misunderstanding seems to be quite widespread. Perhaps the Code should be clearer on this issue.
  4. In this case, the piece is not presented as comment, but as “Business”. For that reason, I am going to ignore all references to this sub-clause in the correspondence at my disposal.

‘Aggressive’

  1. This part of the complaint was withdrawn and needs no further comment.

‘Aggressive + “notorious’

  1. With reference to Galaktiou’s firm, the phrase in question reads, “notorious among journalists for their aggressive defence of their clients”.
  2. Much has been said about the interpretation of the word “notorious” – should it be interpreted as referring to something negative, or is it a “neutral” word, depicting only something that is commonly known?
  3. My first instinct was the former. Yes, it does refer to someone being well-known or famous – but with the connotation of famous for something bad. The words “bad reputation”, “infamous” and “disreputable” immediately spring to mind.
  4. I am also persuaded by Galaktiou’s argument that:

a. former Pres Nelson Mandela would not easily be described as “notorious”, even if he was well-known; and

b. the litmus test is not what dictionaries say, but how the reasonable reader would have understood that word.

  1. If amaBhungane did mean the word to have a negative connotation, and Sole has accepted that and has properly motivated the intention, it could have been a different matter. If he, in that case, had persuaded me that Galaktiou’s firm indeed is notorious in its aggressive approach, I would have found in his favour. Instead, he argues that the use of that word, in that context, is neutral. I cannot buy this argument.
  2. Because of that, I do believe that the use of that word has done unnecessary harm to Galaktiou’s and her firm’s reputation. None of the exceptions that Clause 3.3 of the Press Code allows is applicable in this instance.
  3. Unlike Galaktiou, I am not going to speculate as to the motivation behind the use of those words (e.g. “malicious” or “egregious”).

‘Went quiet’

  1. The statement in question reads, “But when we asked for a copy of the judgment, Nicqui Galaktiou Inc … went quiet.”
  2. The argument that Galaktiou’s firm “went quiet” are recorded under Points 16 – 19 (Galaktiou), 43 – 51 (amaBhungane) and 72 – 75 (Galaktiou again).
  3. This is an important matter, as it conveys the impression that Galaktiou’s firm was evasive and was concealing matters.
  4. Having carefully studied both sides of the argument, the words “went quiet” clearly only pertain to the law firm’s lack of response on 18 and 24 November 2025 (to supply amaBhungane with court papers). Prior to those dates, Galaktiou responded; after those dates, she repeatedly responded (on 29 November 2025, on 15, 17 and 20 January 2026).
  5. However, the statement in dispute should be read in context – it specifically says, “but when we asked for a copy of the judgment”. This is not a general comment, as if it refers to Galaktiou’s overall conduct (or lack thereof) – it only refers to this particular matter, which happens to be true. Galaktiou did go “quiet” on this specific issue.

‘Ducking accountability’

  1. The statement in question reads, “They (read: Nicqui Galaktiou Inc) weren’t the only ones ducking accountability … no one wanted to talk about this case.”
  2. This issue is recorded under Points 20-22 (Galaktiou), 52-57 (amaBhungane) and 76-78 (Galaktiou again).
  3. The gist of amaBhungane’s justification for this statement is that Galaktiou refused to help obtain court papers and that she requested that her firm not be mentioned in an article. Sole rejects the notion that the statement implies guilt by association, as it merely groups people together who declined to discuss the case.
  4. Galaktiou’s main arguments are that her firm had nothing to account for as it was not party to the matter and therefore was not a subject of any investigation – its only role was that of legal representative. The allegation in question, she maintains, created guilt by association and the false impression that her firm had an obligation to account for wrongdoing and that it deliberately avoided doing so.
  5. I do not believe that Galaktiou could be held “accountable” for not providing court papers. Accountable? To whom?
  6. This wrong impression is exacerbated by the words at the end of that sentence: “… no one wanted to talk about this case.” That is simply not true – Galaktiou has reacted many times, as is recorded under Point 99. It was unfair to her and her firm to allege that she did not want to talk about this case.
  7. I do believe that the use of those words has done unnecessary harm to Galaktiou’s and her firm’s reputation. None of the exceptions that Clause 3.3 of the Press Code provides for is applicable in this instance.

The photograph

  1. The argument about this matter is recorded under Points 23-27 (Galaktiou), 58-61 (amaBhungane) and 79 – 81 (Galaktiou again).
  2. The heart of Galaktiou’s complaint is that the publication of her picture falsely associates her with alleged misconduct – especially because it was printed within the context of words like “notorious”, “went quiet” and “ducking accountability”. This reinforced a prejudicial narrative and there was no public interest involved, she argues.
  3. She adds that she did not give consent for her picture to be published.
  4. amaBhungane counters that the picture was justified as it was presented “neutrally”, it was publicly available and it was materially the same as identifying somebody by name. Sole emphasises that Galaktiou is a prominent attorney with a significant public profile and denies that he needed her permission to publish her picture. He also argues that “any limited privacy concerns were outweighed by the public interest”.
  5. I do not believe that the publication of the picture necessarily created an unfair association with alleged misconduct.
  6. Sole’s arguments on this issue, as documented in Points 58 – 61, are reasonable.

Finding

‘Aggressive’

  1. There is no finding on this part of the complaint.

‘Aggressive + “notorious’

  1. The use of the word “notorious” was unsubstantiated and pejorative, and is in breach of the following clauses of the Press Code:
    • 1: “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”; and
    • 3: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation…”

‘Went quiet’

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

‘Ducking accountability’

  1. The use of the words in question was false and unfair and is in breach of the following clauses of the Press Code:
    • 1: “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”; and
    • 3: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation…”

The photograph

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Sanction

amaBhungane is directed to apologise for and retract the use of the words “notorious” and “ducking accountability”.

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 article was published;
  • be published with the apology in the introductory sentence and with a headline including the words “apology” and “Galaktiou”;
  • 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

30 May 2026

 

 

 

Related Posts