Collins Letsoalo vs Sunday Times
BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA
In the matter between:
Mr Collins Letsoalo Applicant
Sunday Times Respondent
Matter No: 000446/12/2025
DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
- This is an application by Mr Collins Letsoalo (applicant) for leave to appeal a finding of the Deputy Press Ombud dated 20 February 2026. The finding was on a complaint that had been lodged by the applicant against the Sunday Times (respondent) in respect of an article published on 14 December 2025. The headline read: “RAF blows millions in dodgy call centre deal”. The sub-head read: “Tender process side-stepped as Road Accident Fund replaces R25m internal service with alternative that costs R190m”. The sub-headline actually captured the essence of the article. It stated that RAF replaced an internally operated call centre that cost R25m in a year with an external service provider, Alteram Solutions, at a cost of R199m over just 13 months. This was justified by RAF on the ground that the old call centre was not fit for purpose, whereas the new one was highly effective and achieved a high level of customer satisfaction – an argument that was labelled untrue by someone anonymous within RAF.
It is not necessary to go into the details of the arguments for or against the one or the other. What is important was the allegation that the introduction of the external service provider was marred with irregularities.
- The applicant alleged that the article breached a number of the clauses of the Press Code, such as that he was not given the opportunity to comment. In his finding, the Deputy Press Ombud systematically set out 8 complaints, which he went into in some detail. Here is the gist of the complaints: Complaint 1: that the article is sensational and the headline misleading. Compliant 2: the use of the applicant’s photograph in the article. Complaint 3: that the article is full of inaccuracies. Complaint 4: that an impression is given that using Treasury Regulation 16A.6.6 violated the Public Finance Management Act or procurement regulations (a conclusion by the applicant which is curiously arrived at). Complaint 5: that the applicant is wrongly referred to as suspended CEO. Complaint 6: that the applicant was not asked to comment. Complaint 7: that the article insinuated criminality. Complaint 8: that whereas reference was made to a SCOPA inquiry, RAF’s responses were not mentioned.
- The substance of the respondent’s defence was that the facts in the article were not disputed and that it relied on highly confidential documents and sources. What follows was the gist of the respondent’s response to the complaints summarized above. Regarding the first complaint: the article was not sensational nor was the headline misleading or not related to the content of the article. Regarding the second complaint, respondent argued that the use of the applicant’s photograph was justified as the article referred to the applicant several times. Inaccuracies alleged in the third complaint were denied, and that they were not identified. Alleged impressions of violation of the PFMA in the fourth complaint were denied. Regarding the fifth complaint, the response was that whereas the applicant was indeed not the suspended CEO at the time of the article, he was the CEO at the time of his suspension and he was, importantly, not totally divorced from the issues raised in the article. As for the sixth complaint, the respondent did not deny that it did not contact the applicant for comment; some explanation was given which was however not convincing to the Deputy Ombud. Regarding the seventh complaint, namely, the insinuation of criminality, the response was, amongst others, that a reader would distinguish between being investigated criminally, and stating that one is guilty of a crime. As for the eighth complaint, the defence was, amongst others, that the SCOPA inquiry was not complete; therefore, it was not possible to include everything to make the article a fair reporting.
- For the applicant to obtain leave to appeal, he should show reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; this is what I must now assess; to that end, I took the effort to present the gist of both the complaints and the responses for consideration.
- The Deputy Ombud analysed and considered each complaint and response thereto. There is no need to repeat same. I am satisfied that he dealt with the matter properly and, having done so, correctly dismissed all the complaints but one, namely, the sixth one, which was that the applicant was not given the opportunity to respond. A sanction was then imposed. Some of the factors I took into consideration in coming to the conclusion that I do, are that the RAF had been in the news over a period of time and was therefore legitimately an institution for public interest. On the face of it, the difference between the money spent on the internal call centre and on Alteram Solutions (the outside service provider) is so vast that questions were justified as a matter of legitimate discussion, particularly given the information supplied to the respondent; whether it was correct in all respects or not. The fact that a number of senior officials were suspended, did not help; it placed the institution under scrutiny. Finally, there are queries about the process that led to the procurement of the services of Alteram Solutions, which were expressed by someone from within. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal did not take the matter any further. I agree with the respondent that the applicant has not shown any prospects of success on appeal. The application is therefore dismissed.
Dated this 8th day of June 2026.
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel.
