Mthethwa Moses Ge vs Oudtshoorn Courant
BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA
In the matter between:
Mthethwa Moses Ge Applicant
and
Oudtshoorn Courant Respondent
Matter No: 000473/01/2026
DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
- Mr Moses Ge Mthethwa (the applicant) asks for leave to appeal the Ruling of the Deputy Press Ombud dated 31 March 2026. The Ruling followed a complaint lodged by the applicant against Oudtshoorn Courant (respondent) which was in connection with certain articles published by the respondent about him some time in 2024. He said in his complaint that on 13 June 2024 the respondent published an article that he had been placed on precautionary suspension pending a Provincial Forensic Services (PFS) investigation, and that the article created a clear impression that he was personally under investigation, whereas the investigation was into the affairs of the museum he was working for as the manager. He lodged the complaint in June 2024. On 2 August 2024 the respondent published a follow-up article entitled “Museum-bestuurder se skorsing gelig”. He says on 9 August 2024 the then Public Advocate (PA) informed the parties that in light of the follow-up article, the matter could be regarded as closed. The applicant accepted that that would be the case, more so as correspondence from the Department of Cultural Affairs & Sport confirmed that his suspension did not arise from the PFS investigation but that the investigation was directed against the institution and not against him. The article the applicant complained about was also accessible online.
- On 21 January 2026 the applicant filed a “new” complaint with the Press Council against the Respondent in respect of the same 2024 article; this after he had accepted the PA’s letter of 9 August 2024 that the matter be regarded as resolved and closed. It is best to restate what he sets out in paragraph 6 of what he describes as a “Condonation Application” dated 21 January 2026 (wrongly dated “2025”).
“6.1 I only later became aware that the earlier articles continued to appear prominently on Google search results associated with my name.
6.2 This came to my attention after a friend alerted me on 8th January 2026 that, on searching my name online and on social media platforms such as Facebook, the first results linked me to allegations of corruption and a forensic investigation.
6.3 I was unaware, until that point, of the extent the articles remained actively indexed and accessible, long after my suspension had been uplifted and without any corrective context.”
- He then argues that the “harm caused by the continued publication of these articles is ongoing and cumulative …” and that members “of the public have directly referred to me as ‘the corrupt Moses’ from the museum …”. He says the reputational harm did not end in August 2024 when the PA said the matter was resolved but continues “daily as long as the articles remain online without correction or clarification.”
- The applicant’s application for condonation was adjudicated upon and dismissed by the Deputy Press Ombud in his above Ruling on the ground that the application came too long after the publication of the article complained about. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal the Ruling. Both the current Public Advocate and the Deputy Press Ombud declined the condonation, dismissing the complaint.
- I have a different understanding of the matter. I think the applicant, the then Public Advocate and the Deputy Press Ombud, all mischaracterized the nature of the applicant’s case. The applicant is not filing a new complaint, for which he would of course need condonation for the late filing thereof. In my view, it is the same old complaint he filed in 2024 but which he did not prosecute further after he was told that the matter had been resolved, only to find that the publication continues to be accessible on social media platforms . In my view, this is an attempt to proceed with the (original) complaint after becoming aware on 8 January 2026 that the publication was still available on social media platforms. On 21 January 2026 he took steps, namely, to file what he said was a new complaint. It is true that he says that “this is not a repetition of my earlier complaint (Ref 31848), but is based on new facts, ongoing harm, and the publication’s continued failure to correct materially misleading impressions notwithstanding later developments.” But there is nothing contained in the aforegoing that what we have is a new complaint. The “later developments” is seemingly reference to the then PA’s advice that the matter was resolved (only for the publication to remain unremoved and accessible to the public online).
In my view, this was therefore arguably not a new complaint.
- In coming to my decision below, I considered the following:
6.1 When the then PA said the matter should be regarded as resolved, was he aware that the article complained of would continue to be available on social media platforms without any correction?
6.2 Did the PA’s letter give the applicant the impression that the article would also be removed or corrected by the respondent on social media platforms?
6.3 Was the complainant aware or should have reasonably been aware that the said article would persist uncorrected by the respondent on social media platforms, but nevertheless accepted the advice by the then PA?
6.4 He says his attention was drawn only on 8 January 2026 that notwithstanding the letter of 9 August 2024 by the then PA that the matter was resolved, the article persisted online, whereupon on 21 January 2026 he took steps.
7. I do not have the power to set aside the Ruling of the Deputy Press Ombud, only the Appeals Panel can do so; otherwise I might have done so and referred the matter back to be considered not as a new complaint. For the reasons mentioned, it is my view that there are reasonable prospects that the Appeals Panel may find that there was a genuine misunderstanding as to whether this was an attempt to proceed with the same old complaint, or there was a new complaint. Depending on the outcome, the Appeals Panel might:
7.1 confirm the Ruling of the Deputy Ombud that this is a new complaint and therefore out of time, or not out of time, or
7.2 find that this is not a new complaint and decide its fate as the Appeal Panel might deem fit, or
7.3 come to some other conclusion.
8. In light of the above, leave to appeal to the Appeals Panel is hereby granted.
Dated this 22nd day of June 2026
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel
