Rafik Mohamed and Others vs Mail & Guardian

Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August

 15 July 2026

Finding: Complaint 000651

Publication (print and online): Mail & Guardian

Article 1:

Date of publication: 8 May 2026

Authors: Hasina Kathrada and Brian Sokutu

Headline:

Inside the R1.1bn SA Steel Mills deal now under scrutiny

https://mg.co.za/business/2026-05-07-inside-the-r1-1bn-sa-steel-mills-deal-now-under-scrutiny/

Article 2:

Date of publication: 22 May 2026

Author: Brian Sokutu

Headline:

Emberton placed under scrutiny

https://mg.co.za/news/south-africa/2026-05-21-emberton-placed-under-scrutiny/

Particulars

This finding is based on a written complaint on behalf of Mr Rafik Mohamed, Coin Wise Trading 42, Pro Roof Industrial Park and the Pro RM Group by their legal representative, Mr Safraaz Laher; a written reply by the legal representative of the Mail & Guardian, Ms Michaela Höll; and a written response by Mr Laher on behalf of the complainants.

Complaint

The complainants submit that the articles are in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 2.1, 3.3 and 11.2 of the Press Code.

1. Summary of articles

Article 1:

1.1. According to the article, previously unreported affidavits raise questions about the due diligence processes and business case on which the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) relied to provide more than R1.1 billion in funding to the Johannesburg-based steel manufacturing company SA Steel Mills (SASM).

1.1.1. A source reportedly told the publication that two suspended IDC employees are facing a disciplinary enquiry for their role in the transaction and that questions about accountability also remain for senior officials linked to approving the transaction.

1.1.2. Despite the IDC disbursements to the company over a seven-year period amounting to R1.1 billion, the article states, SASM has since been placed in business rescue.

1.2. The article further reports that “[c]ompeting allegations” of fraud and embezzlement contained in affidavits deposed by feuding parties raise questions about the IDC’s due diligence processes in continuing to fund SASM after the company allegedly stopped servicing its debt as long ago as 2020.

1.2.1. According to the article, an affidavit by Ashish Verma also alleges theft of funds and money laundering at SASM.

1.2.2. The company faced financial difficulty over a number of years, which reportedly led to the sale of SASM. The family-owned business run by Rafik Mohamed was acquired by Alfeco Holdings, led by Sachin Ahuja, in April 2024 but subsequently withdrew from the transaction.

1.2.3. A R749-million shareholder contribution is at the centre of the dispute between the new and former owners. According to the affidavits, this amount was presented “as shareholder loans introduced into the company and certified by auditors as part of the funding structure relied on by the IDC in approving loan facilities”.

1.2.4. In its response to the publication, the IDC said that funding applications are assessed through a comprehensive due diligence process that considers “financial, commercial, governance and developmental factors, including sustainability and job creation outcomes”.

1.2.5. However, according to the article, the IDC did not directly answer whether it relied on the auditor’s certificate confirming the shareholder contribution.

1.2.6. The new owners of SASM claim that a review of the company’s financial records after the acquisition could not trace the R749 million which the previous owners claimed had been injected into the business as shareholder funding to secure additional IDC facilities.

1.3. The affidavits and supporting documents form part of a criminal complaint reportedly lodged by Alfeco with police in 2024. These documents outline claims about how funding conditions were allegedly met and how funds may have flowed through the transaction.

1.3.1. The IDC declined to comment on whether police had approached it regarding the matter on the grounds that, as a matter of policy, it does not comment publicly on “engagements with law enforcement agencies or on matters that may be subject to investigation”. However, it pointed out that it cooperates with the authorities when required to do so.

1.4. Verma further alleges that “false accounting entries may have been used to create the appearance of shareholder funding”.

1.4.1. The article adds that the affidavits describe transactions routed through entities within the group structure, including “the use of a fair value adjustment to declare a dividend that was later treated as a shareholder contribution”.

1.5. The article goes on to ask how the IDC continued approving funds to a company that had allegedly stopped servicing its debt for several years and why warning signs were not identified earlier.

1.5.1. In response, the IDC said it has “established governance, risk management and portfolio monitoring processes” to address challenges in its investment portfolio.

1.5.2. A source with knowledge of the SASM matter said there was no way that millions of rands could have moved outside the IDC without fraud or money laundering being detected and alleged that the SASM transaction was a collusion of external and internal parties, “including senior people within the IDC”.

1.5.3. In response, the IDC said it does not comment publicly on “the contents of internal or external legal reviews, nor on untested or unproven allegations made outside of formal processes”.

1.6. Further supplementary affidavits allege that subsequent reviews of SASM’s accounts identified transactions involving “purported debts and credits, with funds moving through related entities”.

1.6.1. About R121.5 million was allegedly linked to payments associated with Emberton Limited, a company registered in the United Kingdom (UK). However, a Mail & Guardian investigation did not find a clear operational link between Emberton and SASM’s steel business, “raising questions about the commercial rationale for the transactions described in the affidavits”.

1.7. Mohamed’s lawyer, Ashruf Kaka, said the matter was complicated and required a meeting to explain. The publication made a commitment to meet Mohamed and his lawyers during the following week.

1.7.1. The publication approached Ian Small-Smith, the attorney representing Alfeco in the criminal matter, for comment. He declined to comment and said the police and prosecutors should be left to do their work.

Article 2:

1.8. According to the article, the publication learnt that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) was close to deciding whether to charge suspects linked to alleged fraudulent transactions amid claims that Emberton was used to launder money by SASM and inflated invoices from India. The publication reportedly understands that authorities regard Emberton as “a crucial link in entities involved in the external movement of public funds”.

1.8.1. The suspects have reportedly made warning statements to the police, but have declined to comment on the allegations. NPA spokesperson Kaizer Kganyago was not available for comment at the time of going to press.

1.8.2. According to the newspaper’s sources, the investigative units of the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) and the South African Revenue Service (SARS) view the allegations very seriously and believe they warrant a joint investigation.

1.9. The article refers to the previous Mail & Guardian report that affidavits seen by the newspaper point to concerns over due diligence processes and the business case “underpinning” funding to SASM from the IDC (see point 1.1).

1.9.1. Revelations have also reportedly emerged about how the IDC funded SASM – which the article describes as an insolvent entity – even though the corporation maintains that it assesses funding applications through “a comprehensive due diligence process”.

1.9.2. It again notes that Small-Smith declined to comment and that he said that law enforcement “must be left alone to do their work” (point 1.7.1).

1.10. According to the article, allegations of fraud and embezzlement are contained in affidavits deposed by feuding parties and about R121.5 million is allegedly linked to payments associated with Emberton (point 1.6.1).

1.10.1. The former owners of SASM – identified as Coin Wise, PRIP and the Pro RM Group – have denied claims of money laundering and dismissed these as “nothing new”.

1.10.2. On behalf of Mohamed and these three entities, the law firm Shaheed Dollie Incorporated said the allegations formed “part of the disputed factual narrative advanced by Alfeco and PRIP”.

1.10.3. It denied that SASM, Coin Wise, PRIP, the Pro RM Group “or any person acting on their behalf” used Emberton or any related transaction to launder money, inflate invoices, misappropriate funds or dishonestly extract value from SASM or the IDC.

1.10.4. The firm said that Alfeco’s entitlement to retain the PRIP shares were ventilated in a private arbitration by the Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa (AFSA) and that these proceedings culminated in an award on 12 December 2025.

1.10.5. It added that the Emberton issue formed part of a broader attack by Alfeco on Mohamed and the previous management of SASM. However, according to the article, the firm did not answer questions on Emberton and did not provide any “transactional clarity”.

2. Arguments

Rafik Mohamed and Others

2.1. The complainants submit that the articles are incomplete, misleading and unfair. In particular, they contend that the articles adopt or advance Alfeco’s version of events and omit arbitration and appeal outcomes which alter “the context”.

2.1.1. They claim that the articles caused them serious reputational harm and, furthermore, that they created “obvious commercial and litigation prejudice in the context of a pending business rescue process”.

2.2. As background information, the complainants state that SASM is in business rescue. They add that PRIP owns the property on which the SASM steel mill operates and is the shareholder of SASM. They also point out that Coin Wise holds shares in PRIP.

2.2.1. They state that a transaction was concluded between Coin Wise and Alfeco in which the latter sought to acquire the Coin Wise shares in PRIP. This transaction was conditional and became the subject of AFSA arbitration proceedings between Coin Wise and Mohamed on the one hand and between Alfeco and PRIP on the other.

2.2.2. Among other things, Alfeco and PRIP alleged financial irregularities and accounting misrepresentations. According to the complainants, these allegations formed part of a broader commercial dispute and were used in support of Alfeco and PRIP’s attempt to resist “restitution of the PRIP shares and to pursue a damages counterclaim”.

2.2.3. The arbitration culminated in an award on 12 December 2025: the sale of shares and claims agreement was declared to be of no force and effect; it also ordered the restoration of the status quo ante by the return of the PRIP shares to Coin Wise. Alfeco and PRIP’s counterclaim was abandoned and costs were awarded against them.

2.2.4. Alfeco and PRIP then pursued an appeal before an appeal panel. This appeal did not alter the central outcome: the appeal panel rejected Alfeco and PRIP’s attempt to retain the PRIP shares on the basis of “an alleged oral or tacit agreement”.

2.2.5. The complainants maintain that the public narrative that Alfeco “acquired the business” and later “withdrew” from the transaction is thus misleading. They state that Alfeco’s entitlement to retain the PRIP shares was litigated in a private arbitration and failed; these shares were ordered to be transferred back to Coin Wise.

2.3. The complainants further state that Kaka engaged with the publication before the first article was published. He pointed out that the matter was complex and that a meeting was required to properly explain the issues.

2.3.1. It was their understanding that publication would be held over pending that meeting. However, the first article was published on 8 May 2026, denying them a meaningful opportunity to respond.

2.3.2. They also state that, in response to a request from the publication to provide additional comments on new issues, they addressed a detailed letter to Mail & Guardian on 20 May 2026.

2.3.3. In this letter, they denied allegations of “money laundering, inflated invoices, misappropriation and dishonest extraction of value”. They also stated that the Emberton allegations were not new and formed part of the disputed narrative advanced by Alfeco and PRIP.

2.3.4. The letter also informed the publication that any further reporting would be incomplete and misleading if it failed to record “the arbitration award, the appeal outcome, the restoration of the PRIP shares to Coin Wise, the dismissal of the counterclaim, and our … denial of the allegations”.

2.3.5. Despite acknowledging receipt of the letter, they state, the publication published a second article on 22 May 2026. Although the article included part of their denial of the allegations, the complainants claim it failed to include “the material correcting context”.

2.3.6. Furthermore, they state, the article reported that questions on Emberton were “not answered” and that “no transactional clarity” was provided. They regard this as unfair and say they were criticised “for not answering what had never properly been put to them”.

2.4. The complainants then proceed to address their specific complaints about the two articles.

2.4.1. Complaint one: They submit that they were not given an adequate right of reply in view of the fact that Mail & Guardian had agreed to meet Mohamed and his lawyers a week after they were contacted. However, the first article was published before the meeting took place.

2.4.1.1. They complain that the second article repeated the allegations after their 20 May 2026 letter, but used only part of their denial and failed to provide the relevant context.

2.4.1.2. They argue that the publication cannot satisfy Clause 1.8 of the Press Code by “asking compressed questions, withholding the underlying documents, proceeding to publish before a requested meeting, and then later cherry-picking [their] response”.

2.4.1.3. Accordingly, they maintain that they were not given a meaningful opportunity to respond, especially when the allegations include fraud, theft, money laundering and possible prosecution.

2.4.2. Complaint two: The complainants submit that the “new owners/former owners” narrative is wrong and misleading.

2.4.2.1. They note that the first article states that Alfeco, led by Ahuja, “acquired the business in April 2024 but subsequently withdrew from the transaction”, while the second article refers to “the former SASM owners – Coin Wise Trading 42 (Pty) Ltd, Pro Roof Industrial Park (Pty) Ltd and the Pro RM Group”.

2.4.2.2. They dismiss this as factually incorrect or, at the least, materially misleading. Firstly, they say PRIP owns the property and is the shareholder of SASM. Secondly, Coin Wise owns the PRIP shares following the arbitration and appeal process. And, thirdly, Pro RM Group is “an offeror in the business rescue process”; it is not a former SASM owner.

2.4.2.3. They state that, although the publication was specifically informed in their 20 May 2026 letter that its framing of the ownership in the first article was misleading, it perpetuated the confusion in the second article.

2.4.2.4. They maintain this is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code. They believe it is not truthful to report the matter as if Alfeco were simply the new owner who withdrew or to omit the outcome of the arbitration and appeal on the ownership dispute.

2.4.3. Complaint three: The complainants submit that, by omitting the outcome of the arbitration and appeal, the publication failed to properly record that the sale transaction with Alfeco was declared to be of no force and effect.

2.4.3.1. In addition, they state, the publication failed to record that the restoration of the status quo ante was ordered; that the PRIP shares were to be returned to Coin Wise; that Alfeco and PRIP’s counterclaim was abandoned; that Alfeco and PRIP’s appeal failed to alter the central outcome; and that Alfeco’s attempt to retain the PRIP shares was rejected.

2.4.3.2. They argue that these details are central to fair and balanced reporting. Instead, they claim, the articles repeatedly relied on allegations sourced from “Alfeco-aligned affidavits, complaints and sources” and failed to give readers the “adjudicated context” in which Alfeco’s transaction-related case failed.

2.4.3.3. They claim that this is a material omission in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code and that it distorts the report by depriving readers of the necessary context to understand the dispute.

2.4.3.4. They argue that the omission is in breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code as well. They contend that it is not sufficient to use the word “alleged” in “isolated places while the overall structure and emphasis of the article suggest a credible proven pattern of laundering, fraud and misappropriation”.

2.4.4. Complaint four: The complainants submit that the articles present “serious criminal innuendo” without adequate verification.

2.4.4.1. They note that the first article referred to “theft of funds”, “large[-]scale money laundering”, “false accounting entries”, “fraud and embezzlement”, “money laundering”, “funds may have flowed” and that about R121.5 million was allegedly linked to Emberton.

2.4.4.2. They say that the second article went even further and states that the NPA was “close to deciding whether to charge the suspects” and that the investigation “includes Emberton, seen by authorities as a crucial link in entities involved in the external movement of public funds”.

2.4.4.3. They add that the second article claims that, according to sources, the SARB and SARS investigative units “take these allegations very seriously” and that the matter warranted a joint investigation (see point 1.8.2). They regard these statements as serious because they imply criminal conduct and imminent prosecution.

2.4.4.4. However, they point out, the article itself records that the NPA spokesperson was not available for comment at the time. It is therefore unclear to them how the publication verified the allegation that the NPA was close to deciding whether to charge suspects.

2.4.4.5. They add that the publication did not furnish the banking records, forensic report or “source document” on which it relied. Instead, they submit, “broad accusatory questions” were put to Kaka.

2.4.4.6. When the complainants denied the allegations and referred to the context of the arbitration, the second article reported that the publication’s questions had not been answered and that no transactional clarity had been provided.

2.4.4.7. They argue that this is not fair journalism and that a subject of critical reportage cannot be expected to answer “unspecified documents and undefined allegations” when the publication refuses to disclose the documents on which it relies. They maintain this breaches Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7 and 1.8 of the Press Code.

2.4.5. Complaint five: The complainants complain that both articles appear to rely on anonymous sources. They further submit that these sources may be “persons with direct commercial, litigation, business rescue or institutional interests in the outcome of the SASM dispute”.

2.4.5.1. They say that the articles were published against the background of a business rescue process, competing proposals, criminal complaints by Alfeco-aligned parties and failed arbitration proceedings which dismissed Alfeco and PRIP’s counterclaim. They note that the publication was informed of this context in their 20 May 2026 letter.

2.4.5.2. They state that they do not claim as a fact that Alfeco funded or sponsored the articles, but suggest that the articles bear “the hallmarks of a one-sided litigation narrative” and that the publication did not demonstrate adequate editorial independence “in circumstances where the risk of being used as a conduit for an interested party’s commercial or litigation strategy was obvious”. They argue that this “implicates” Clauses 2.1 and 11.2 of the Press Code.

2.4.6. Complaint six: The complainants maintain that the allegations in the articles are not “ordinary commercial criticisms”, but include allegations or innuendo of theft, fraud, embezzlement, money laundering and impending prosecution.

2.4.6.1. They argue that these allegations harm their dignity and reputation. In addition, they submit, the allegations cause them commercial prejudice in the business rescue process and in their dealings with creditors, regulators, funders, employees and others affected.

2.4.6.2. Based on this, they claim that the publication did not exercise sufficient care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation and is therefore in breach of Clause 3.3 of the Press Code.

• 4.6.3. They believe the publication of criminal innuendo is especially prejudicial when the allegations are made by anonymous sources, the arbitration and appeal outcomes are omitted, the documents relied on are not furnished to the subject of the report and the NPA is not available for comment yet the article suggests that decisions are imminent about charging the suspects.

2.4.7. Complaint seven: The complainants object to specific inaccuracies and omissions in the articles and submit that these need to be corrected.

2.4.7.1. For example, they state that Alfeco is improperly described as the “new owner” of PRIP or SASM and that the Pro RM Group is improperly described as a former owner of SASM (they again refer to the Group as an offeror in the business rescue process).

2.4.7.2. The complainants further submit that the transaction with Alfeco was not merely an acquisition from which it later withdrew and say that the transaction was declared to be of no force and effect in private arbitration proceedings.

• 4.7.3. They also reiterate that the restoration of the PRIP shares to Coin Wise was ordered; that Alfeco and PRIP’s counterclaim was abandoned; that Alfeco and PRIP’s appeal did not alter the central outcome; and that Alfeco’s attempt to retain the PRIP shares on the basis of an alleged oral or tacit agreement was rejected.
• 4.7.4. They add that no court, arbitration tribunal or appeal tribunal found that the complainants or SASM laundered money through Emberton, inflated invoices, misappropriated IDC funds or dishonestly extracted value. They suggest that the criminal complaint arises out of broader civil, commercial, arbitration and business rescue disputes.
• 4.7.5. They again complain that the publication did not provide them with the banking record, source document or transactional analysis on which it relied (point 2.4.4.5).
• 4.7.6. Lastly, they repeat their complaint that the publication published the first article before the meeting they had requested and that it published the second article even though it was informed of the omitted facts.
• 5. The complainants request the publication of a correction and apology on every platform on which the articles were published.
• 5.1. They also request, among other things, that the articles be amended to record that they deny the allegations of “fraud, theft, embezzlement, money laundering, misappropriation, false accounting entries, invoice inflation and dishonest misrepresentation”.

2.5.2. They want the articles to be amended as well to reflect that the criminal complaint arises in the context of broader civil, commercial, arbitration and business rescue disputes.

2.5.3. In addition, they want the amended articles to reflect that no court or arbitration tribunal has found that they laundered money through Emberton or that they unlawfully inflated any invoice.

Mail & Guardian

2.6. The respondent states that both articles report on the loan agreements concluded between SASM and the IDC as well as on a subsequent criminal complaint lodged against Mohamed regarding a disputed shareholder contribution.

2.6.1. It points out that the first article does not mention Coin Wise or the Pro RM Group and that Mohamed is referred to as the former owner of SASM and PRIP as the owner of SASM and the land on which the steel mill operates.

2.6.2. The publication says that the complainants are mentioned in the second article “for the sole purpose of recording the denial of allegations” and therefore have no locus standi to bring this complaint. It points out that SASM, the IDC and Emberton – “who are actually referred to in the articles” – did not lodge any complaint.

2.6.3. It adds that Mohamed was given several opportunities to comment before the articles were published.

2.7. The respondent then addresses each of the complaints lodged by the complainants.

2.7.1. Complaint one: The publication submits that it requested Mohamed’s comment on the following allegations before the first article was published: that an invoice from India was inflated by Emberton; that Emberton was used to launder money; and that SASM paid Emberton “the larger amount and launder[ed] the difference”.

2.7.1.1. Kaka contacted the publication on 7 May 2026. He informed it that Mohamed was unavailable and undertook to respond by 14 May 2026 (the relevant WhatsApp message is attached as annexure “A”).

2.7.1.2. The respondent says that it was therefore not possible to seek Mohamed’s views before the first article was published.

2.7.1.3. In compliance with Clause 1.9, the publication followed this up before publication of the second article, but did not receive a response from Kaka by the agreed deadline of 14 May 2026 (a screenshot of the WhatsApp messages is attached as annexure “B”).

2.7.1.4. It submits that the complainants were therefore given almost two weeks to provide comment on the three allegations. When the complainants finally responded on 20 May 2026, it says, the responses amounted to “bare denials” and were recorded in the second article.

2.7.1.5. In view of the length and complexity of the allegations, the publication maintains that the complainants were given a reasonable amount of time to respond. As such, it argues that it is not in breach of Clause 1.8.

2.7.1.6. The publication adds that the Press Code does not require it to provide the complainants with its material sources to enable them to provide a response. It says the Press Code simply obliges it to seek their views – “which was done”.

2.7.1.7. In any event, it contends, the complainants would have had access to the affidavits and supporting documents for the criminal complaint lodged against Mohamed regarding the disputed shareholder contribution.

2.7.2. Complaint two: Regarding the complaint about the apparent misleading description of who the “new” and “former” owners of SASM are, the respondent submits that the reasons offered by the complainants are based on the private arbitration proceedings in which the Sale of Shares and Claims Agreement was apparently declared to be of no force and effect. It notes that this explanation was prefaced by the statement that the complainants do not waive the confidentiality attached to these proceedings.

2.7.2.1. The publication states that, in terms of Clause 11.3 of the Press Code, “the media shall not publish information that constitutes a breach of confidence, unless the public interest dictates otherwise”.  It states that it could therefore not in good faith disclose the private and confidential arbitration proceedings and awards.

2.7.2.2. The publication adds that, regardless of whether or not the complainants waived their own confidentiality, it would have been unfair to publish information that is protected by confidentiality.

2.7.2.3. The respondent also maintains that there was no breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code and argues that the complainants were quoted extensively in the second article, even though it was not possible to include each statement. Nevertheless, it argues, the article includes all material facts that are not confidential.

2.7.2.4. The publication further points out that it informed the complainants on 20 May 2026 that it did not receive the confidential arbitration proceedings and that the information on which it relied was obtained mainly from documents relating to the criminal complaint.

2.7.2.5. The publication says it requested a response to its questions and also gave the complainants an opportunity to provide additional information, particularly regarding Emberton (annexure “C”). However, it says it did not receive a response before the second article was published.[1]

2.7.3. Complaint three: The respondent contends that this complaint duplicates the second complaint to some extent and has been addressed.

2.7.3.1. It again refers to the statement by the complainants on 20 May 2026 that the arbitration proceedings were private and that they did not waive the confidentiality attached to these proceedings.

2.7.3.2. The publication reiterates that it erred on the side of caution in compliance with Clause 11.3 of the Press Code and did not include details of the proceedings of the arbitration between Alfeco, PRIP and Coin Wise.

2.7.3.3. It contends that, in any event, these proceedings were irrelevant to the criminal complaint against Mohamed and the allegations concerning Emberton, which it says were put to the complainants (point 2.7.2.5).

2.7.3.4. It further dismisses the claim that the omission of these statements amounts to a breach of Clause 1.3 since this clause concerns statements of fact and does not apply to omissions.

2.7.3.5. The publication adds that the complainants failed to specify which allegations, rumours and suppositions were stated as fact and in which article these statements appeared. As a result, it says it is unable to respond to this alleged breach except to deny that it violated this clause at all.

2.7.4. Complaint four: The respondent submits that this complaint is essentially a claim that the articles imply criminal conduct by the complainants. It states that these references are based on the information provided by its sources and affidavits deposed in support of the criminal complaint.

2.7.4.1. It claims that it is ludicrous for the complainants to claim that they have not had sight of these documents in view of the fact that they provided warning statements.

2.7.4.2. With regard to the reference in the second article that the NPA was close to deciding whether to charge the suspects, it maintains that this was merely a report on the progress of the criminal proceedings. (It says this was true because Mohamed was subsequently arrested in relation to these charges.)

2.7.4.3. The publication adds that, to date, the complainants have not offered any explanation or answer to the allegations against them. Instead, they made “a bare denial” of all the allegations and deflected to the confidential arbitration proceedings. As such, it maintains, all the information published is reasonably true.

2.7.4.4. It also points out that the denial of the complainants was recorded in the second article.

2.7.4.5. With regard to the alleged breach of Clause 1.1, the publication contends that its reporting was truthful, accurate and fair. It maintains that it was supported by multiple sources with knowledge of the IDC process and the Alfeco acquisition as well as information in affidavits filed in support of the criminal complaint.

2.7.4.6. And, although the complainants did not comment on the allegations, their “bare denial” and reference to the arbitration proceedings were included in the second article. The publication says there was therefore no departure from the facts in breach of Clause 1.2.

2.7.4.7. In relation to Clause 1.3, the respondent states that the complainants again failed to clearly indicate what statements of fact were made that were not reasonably true.

2.7.4.8. It reiterates that its information was provided by reliable, independent sources and was also based on affidavits filed in support of the criminal complaint. As such, it submits that its information was therefore reasonably true.

2.7.4.9. Regarding the alleged breach of Clause 1.7, the publication submits that it had no reason to doubt the accuracy of its information: it was provided by primary sources and was supported by documentary evidence in the form of affidavits filed in support of the criminal complaint.

2.7.4.10. Despite this, it says, it attempted to verify its information by asking the complainants to comment on the allegations. The NPA and the IDC, too, were approached to verify the information.

2.7.4.11. The complainants’ denial of the allegations was reflected in the second article. Accordingly, the publication maintains, it complied with Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.

2.7.5. Complaint five: The respondent submits that the Press Code does not prohibit the use of anonymous sources but, instead, requires the media to corroborate such information.

2.7.5.1. It observes that it corroborated its information with multiple sources, including the IDC, the deponents of the affidavits filed in support of the criminal complaint, the affidavits filed and supporting documents. It adds that it gave the complainants several opportunities to corroborate or dispute the information, but they merely gave a blanket denial.

2.7.5.2. Regarding the second aspect of this complaint, the publication declares that it does not have any commercial, political or personal interest in the dispute.

2.7.5.3. It goes on to argue that Clause 2.1 is not directed at avoiding whether sources may have an interest in the outcome of a dispute. It adds that the complainants, too, have an interest in the outcome of the dispute and were given opportunities to provide their version.

2.7.6. Complaint six: The complainants allege that the articles contain allegations or innuendo which affect their dignity and reputation in contravention of Clause 3.3 of the Press Code.

2.7.6.1. The respondent repeats the background information in points 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 and states that, apart from these references to the complainants, they are not mentioned nor are they identified as being suspects in the criminal complaint.

2.7.6.2. In any event, it maintains, the articles were in the public interest based on the allegations that involve more than R1 billion in IDC funding and the subsequent business rescue proceedings of SASM which led to a loss of more than 1 000 jobs. Furthermore, the matter involves issues that relate to governance, due diligence and oversight at a state development financial institution.

2.7.6.3. The publication also notes that the allegations against the complainants fall within the ambit of Clause 3.3.3 of the Press Code as they are contained in the affidavits in support of the criminal complaint.

2.7.6.4. It again states that it provided the complainants with multiple rights of reply and that it prepared the information in accordance with acceptable principles of journalistic conduct, in line with Clause 3.3.4 of the Press Code.

2.7.6.5. In particular, it notes, the complainants were afforded an opportunity to provide their version of events. Instead, the publication claims, they offered a denial without any explanation and deflected to a confidential arbitration proceeding, “which bears no relevance to the allegations”.

2.7.7. Complaint seven: The respondent submits that the alleged inaccuracies and omissions listed in the complaint are irrelevant to the content of the article, “which deals with the criminal complaint and allegations against Mohamed, and has no concern with the commercial arbitration”.

2.7.7.1. The publication also contends that the list of alleged inaccuracies and omissions contains information that the complainants previously claimed were confidential.

2.7.7.2. It further states that it is inaccurate to state that no charges were preferred against Mohamed because warning statements were submitted in response to the criminal complaint. It adds that Mohamed was subsequently arrested in connection with this complaint.

2.7.7.3. The publication asserts that the rest of the items are “merely repetition” and that these have been addressed.

2.7.7.4. In conclusion, the respondent submits that it has not violated any clause of the Press Code and that the complaint should be dismissed.

Rafik Mohamed and Others

2.8. The complainants submit that their complaint is not that the respondent was prohibited from reporting on the IDC funding, SASM, the business rescue process or the existence of a criminal complaint. They recognise that these may be matters of public interest.

2.8.1. They say their complaint is that the articles were incomplete, misleading and unfair, and that they advanced – or substantially adopted – “the Alfeco/complainant-side narrative” while omitting the context that would enable readers to understand that the allegations arose during broader civil and commercial disputes.

2.8.2. They cite the ownership narrative as an example and say the publication referred to Alfeco as the owner/new owner or, at least, reported the matter in a manner which created that impression.

2.8.3. The complainants claim that the “corrective context” was simple: they were successful in the arbitration and Alfeco’s entitlement to retain the PRIP shares was not sustained; these shares were transferred back to Coin Wise.

2.8.4. They regard this context as essential and argue that it needed to be recorded to avoid misleading readers. They maintain that this did not require the publication of confidential information about the arbitration pleadings, evidence or awards. They argue that the publication simply needed to state that the ownership position was disputed, that they succeeded in the arbitration and that the PRIP shares were transferred back.

2.8.5. Based on the above, they contend that the publication’s reliance on confidentiality is misplaced. They believe that this did not prevent it from correcting the “ownership narrative” and state that it was possible to record the outcome of the arbitration without breaching confidentiality.

2.8.6. Instead, they submit, the publication left readers with the impression that Alfeco acquired the business and later withdrew. They claim this was inaccurate, unfair and prejudicial.

2.9. The complainants also reiterate that they were not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the material on which the articles relied.

2.9.1. They claim that it was unfair to ask broad questions without providing material such as the banking record, source documents and alleged transactional analysis, and then to characterise their response as a bare denial or as a failure to provide “transactional clarity” (see points 2.4.4.5 and 2.4.4.6).

2.10. The complainants complain, too, that the respondent went ahead with publication    despite an agreement to meet with Kaka beforehand.

2.11. The complainants state that they do not have any record that the correspondence referred to by the respondent in annexure “C” was sent to their offices. They say it is not clear how it was sent, when it was sent or to whom it was sent.

2.11.1. In any case, they contend, annexure “C” does not answer their complaint and that, at best, it records an awareness that the arbitration proceedings were private and that the Emberton issue was raised during those proceedings.

2.11.2. They add that this does not justify publishing an ownership narrative which omitted the fact that their arbitration had succeeded and that the PRIP shares had been transferred back to Coin Wise.

2.12. The complainants further submit that the respondent’s reliance on Mohamed’s subsequent arrest is misplaced. They argue that an arrest after publication does not retrospectively “validate” the earlier reporting.

2.12.1. They add that an arrest also does not prove that the allegations are true. They say an arrest is “not conviction” and is not proof of fraud, theft, money laundering or invoice inflation.

2.12.2. The complainants also contend that referring to Mohamed’s arrest after publication does not answer whether the articles were fair, balanced, accurate and properly contextualised when they were published.

2.13. The complainants further submit that the publication’s response fails to address the issue of its sources. Their complaint was not merely about the use of anonymous sources, they say, but also that these sources appear to have direct commercial or institutional interests in the SASM dispute.

2.13.1. They suggest that the publication did not take adequate steps to avoid becoming “a conduit for a one-sided litigation narrative”.

2.13.2. They claim that Clause 2.1 of the Press Code includes scrutiny of reporting that is “materially shaped by interested sources, particularly in the context of an active business rescue process and pending commercial disputes”.

2.14. The complainants further submit that the response of the publication does not address their complaint about dignity and reputational harm. They believe the articles were not neutral reports of a dispute and carried serious criminal innuendo.

2.14.1. They add that prejudice was aggravated by the omission of “the relevant commercial, arbitration and ownership context”.

2.15. The complainants dismiss the respondent’s attempt to minimise locus standi. They say the articles concern the SASM/PRIP/Coin Wise/Pro RM Group dispute and reported the “ownership narrative” in a way that affects them adversely.

2.15.1. They argue that when a publication refers to Alfeco as the owner or new owner (or creates that impression), and omits to report that the complainants succeeded in arbitration and that the PRIP shares were returned, the prejudice to the complainants is obvious. They contend that this is not a technical complaint by unrelated parties, but goes to “the very commercial and reputational core of the dispute”.

2.16. The complainants also submit that the respondent does not engage properly with the aspects of business rescue timing and commercial prejudice. They note that the articles were published in the context of “a live business rescue process, competing proposals, affected persons, creditor sentiment and ongoing disputes between the same parties”.

2.16.1. They maintain that the omission of the context of arbitration and ownership therefore had “real commercial consequences”.

3. Discussion

3.1. Complaint 1: There are several aspects to the claim that the complainants were not given an adequate right of reply, including that the respondent went ahead with publication even though it had agreed to a meeting before doing so (points 2.4.1 and 2.10).

3.1.1. This undertaking was even recorded in the first article published on 8 May 2026: “The M&G has committed to meeting Mohamed and his lawyers next week.”

3.1.2. The publication should not have made such a commitment if it held the view all along that it was under no obligation to honour it. This gives the impression – rightly or wrongly – that the undertaking was made in bad faith.

3.1.3. Of course, the Press Code does not require the media to have a meeting with the subject of critical reportage before publication. The question remains, though, of how much importance to attach to the respondent’s failure to keep its undertaking to meet before going ahead with publication.

3.1.4. In favour of the publication is that it sufficiently meets the requirement of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code in a number of respects.

3.1.5. Firstly, Mohamed was indeed contacted for comment but the publication was informed that he was out of town and was therefore unable to respond in time before the first article was published.

3.1.6. Secondly, Mohamed’s lawyer eventually provided a response on behalf of the complainants on 20 May 2026. This was duly recorded in the second article, which was published two days later.

3.1.7. Thirdly, the publication cannot be faulted for not making certain documents available to the complainants when it approached them for comment (point 2.4.1.2). The Press Code does not oblige the media to do so.

3.1.8. As then Press Ombud Herman Scholtz notes in Siyaya TV vs amaBhungane: “A publication must place all material allegations to a subject of critical reportage to enable the individual or entity to respond to those allegations. This is the real requirement, and not a requirement to state the source document or source of such an allegation.”[2]

3.1.9. In any event, as the respondent points out, the complainants would have had access to the affidavits and supporting documents for the criminal complaint lodged against Mohamed (point 2.7.1.7).

3.1.10. Moreover, the publication informed the complainants on 20 May 2026 that the information on which it relied was obtained mainly from documents relating to this criminal complaint (point 2.7.2.4).

3.1.11. Fourthly, there is no merit either in the complaint that the second article cherry-picked from the response of the complainants (point 2.4.1.2). There is no obligation on the media to publish the response of a complainant in full.

3.1.12. As Deputy Press Ombud Franz Krüger points out in Cornerstone College and Sally-Ann Hurlin vs City Press: “It is not necessary for every element of a response to be covered, nor that every small detail is put to the subject of critical reportage. What is important is for their position to be reflected fairly, which means that the major elements need to be reflected.”[3]

3.1.13. This is indeed the case in the second article. As a result, the respondent complies with Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.

3.1.14. For the reasons specified in points 3.1.5 and 3.1.6, article one is also deemed to comply sufficiently with the Press Code, even though the publication did not keep its commitment to have a meeting before the article was published.

3.2. Complaint 2: There is merit in the complaint that the ownership of SASM is reported incorrectly.

3.2.1. The first article reports that PRIP owns SASM. According to the complainants, however, PRIP is the shareholder of SASM – not the owner (point 2.2).

3.2.2. They also point out that Coin Wise holds shares in PRIP and that a conditional transaction was concluded between Coin Wise and Alfeco in which the latter sought to acquire the Coin Wise shares in PRIP (point 2.2.1).

3.2.3. They note that a private arbitration ordered that the PRIP shares be transferred back to Coin Wise. It is therefore misleading to report that Alfeco “acquired the business” and later “withdrew” from the transaction.

3.2.4. The second article also mistakenly refers to “Coin Wise Trading 42 (Pty) Ltd, Pro Roof Industrial Park (Pty) Ltd and the Pro RM Group” as the former owners of SASM.

3.2.5. In its defence, the publication submits that the reasons offered by the complainants are based on the private arbitration proceedings in which the Sale of Shares and Claims Agreement was declared to be of no force and effect. It contends that it would have been unfair to publish confidential information from these proceedings (points 2.7.2 and 2.7.2.2).

3.2.6. However, the complainants informed the publication in their letter of 20 May 2026 that reporting on the matter would be incomplete and misleading if it failed to record “the arbitration award, the appeal outcome, the restoration of the PRIP shares to Coin Wise, [and] the dismissal of the counterclaim” (point 2.3.4).

3.2.7. In other words, even though the complainants did not waive the confidentiality attached to the arbitration proceedings, the publication could still have recorded the outcome of the arbitration without breaching the confidentiality of the proceedings. That they elected not to do so – in disregard of the information received directly from the complainants – is problematic, to say the least.

3.2.8. The respondent’s argument that it would be unfair to publish information protected by confidentiality, “regardless of whether the complainants have or have not waived their own confidentiality” (my emphases), holds no water.

3.2.9. The complainants did not waive the confidentiality of the proceedings of the private arbitration; they simply requested that the outcome of these proceedings be reflected.

3.2.10. The result of this omission is an incomplete, if not skewed, picture of the outcome of the arbitration and appeal proceedings and the ownership of SASM.

3.2.11. Thus, while the confusion regarding the ownership of SASM in the first article may be excused on the grounds that it was based on the information at its disposal at the time, the same cannot be said of the second article. In light of the complainants’ letter of 20 May 2026, the second article is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.3. Complaint three: This is related to the previous complaint about the omission of any reference to the outcome of the proceedings of the arbitration and the appeal (point 3.2.6). This aspect has been adequately addressed under 3.2 above in relation to Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.3.1. With regard to Clause 1.3, the complainants do not provide any evidence to support their claim that the publication is in breach of this clause. They merely declare that the use of the word “alleged” is inadequate when the overall emphasis is on a pattern of money-laundering, fraud and misappropriation (point 2.4.3.4).

3.3.2. However, there were sufficient grounds for the publication to report these allegations: they were based, in part, on documents relating to the criminal complaint (point 2.7.2.4).

3.3.3. In any case, as the publication rightly points out, the complainants do not specify which allegations, rumours and suppositions were erroneously stated as fact and in which article these statements appeared (point 2.7.3.5).

3.3.4. On the basis of the above, there is no breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code.

3.4. Complaint four: The complainants submit that the articles present “serious criminal innuendo” without adequate verification in violation of Clause 1.7 of the Press Code (see point 2.4.4).

3.4.1. In particular, they single out the reference in the second article that the NPA was close to deciding whether to charge the suspects and that the investigation includes Emberton when, in fact, the NPA spokesperson was not available for comment at the time.

3.4.2. Be that as it may, the publication approached a number of other sources to verify its information, including the complainants themselves and the IDC (point 2.7.4.10).

3.4.3. In addition, as noted in the previous complaint, the publication relied on the affidavits deposed under oath in support of the criminal complaint. As such, it is justified in stating that its information was reasonably true (point 2.7.4.8).

3.4.4. Furthermore, it is not necessary for the media to verify information contained in an affidavit (nor, for that matter, is it advisable[4]). An affidavit is a written statement made under oath and carries the same legal weight as testimony given under oath in court.

3.4.5. The complaint that the publication did not make available the documents on which the articles were based has already been dealt with sufficiently in the previous complaint (see points 3.1.7 to 3.1.10).

3.4.6. In view of the information above, the publication is not in breach of Clause 1.7. (The alleged breaches of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.8 of the Press Code are dealt with more appropriately elsewhere in relation to other complaints.)

3.5. Complaint five: There is little merit in the complaint about the use of anonymous sources. As the publication correctly points out, the Press Code does not rule out the use of such sources. What it does expect from the media is to take care to corroborate such sources.

3.5.1. In this instance, the publication sought information from multiple sources and examined affidavits filed in support of the criminal complaint as well as supporting documents (point 2.7.5.1).

3.5.2. The complainants are quite correct in drawing attention to the possibility that some sources may be motivated by their own interests. This risk may be especially pronounced when it comes to sources who provide information or make claims anonymously.

3.5.3. However, it is more than likely that all sources have some interest or other in a matter that is the subject of dispute. The most effective way to avoid disseminating misinformation and/or disinformation is to gather as much information as possible from a range of sources.

3.5.4. This is precisely why the publication offered the complainants an opportunity to give their side of the story. Their version was duly reflected in the second article and at some length.

3.5.5. This contradicts the claim by the complainants that the publication only advanced one side of the story and that it acted in a manner that was not sufficiently independent (point 2.4.5.2).

3.5.6. Accordingly, there is no breach of either Clause 2.1 or Clause 11.2 of the Press Code in this regard.

3.6. Complaint six: The complainants maintain that the allegations or innuendo of theft, fraud, embezzlement and money laundering harm their dignity and reputation. In addition, they say that the allegations caused them commercial prejudice in the business rescue process and in various business dealings.

3.6.1. The publication correctly points out that Coin Wise and the Pro RM Group are not mentioned at all in the first article and that Mohamed is simply referred to as the former owner of SASM, while PRIP is described as the owner of the land on which the steel mill operates and, erroneously, as the owner of SASM (point 2.6.1).

3.6.2. There is also merit in the response of the publication that the complainants are mentioned in the second article primarily for the purpose of recording their denial of the allegations (point 2.6.2).

3.6.3. Moreover, both articles can also be justified on the grounds of public interest. The IDC was established through an Act of Parliament in 1940 and is wholly owned by the South African Government.[5]

3.6.4. As such, there is undeniably significant public interest in allegations that involve more than R1.1 billion in IDC funding and in business rescue proceedings which led to the loss of more than 1 000 jobs at SASM. These matters relate to governance, due diligence and oversight at a state-owned financial institution (point 2.7.6.2).

3.6.5. The publication further notes – quite rightly – that the allegations against the complainants fall within the ambit of Clause 3.3.3 of the Press Code because they are contained in affidavits in support of the criminal complaint (point 2.7.6.3).

3.6.6. However, where the publication does run into trouble is in its failure to refer to the outcome of the arbitration and appeals proceedings in the second article even though it was informed about these by the complainants in their letter of 20 May 2026 (points 2.3.4. and 3.2.6).

3.6.7. It would be unreasonable to disregard the complainants’ claim that this omission caused them reputational harm as well as commercial prejudice during the business rescue process that was then pending (point 2.1.1).

3.6.8. They maintain that the omission had real commercial consequences at the time of publication (point 2.16.1). Even though it may be difficult to prove let alone measure, on a balance of probabilities this cannot be ruled out.

3.6.9. Furthermore, what makes the omission of any reference to the arbitration and appeals proceedings even more hard to overlook is that the publication elected not to record the outcomes of these processes although it could have done so without breaching the confidentiality of these proceedings (see point 3.2.7).

3.6.10. The second article is therefore deemed to be in breach of Clause 3.3 of the Press Code regarding this aspect of the complaint.

3.7. Complaint seven: The complainants repeat several claims made in other complaints (see points 2.4.7.1 to 2.4.7.3, 2.4.7.5 and 2.4.7.6).  These aspects have been sufficiently dealt with elsewhere in the Discussion.

3.7.1. The complainants again state that no court, arbitration tribunal or appeal tribunal has found that either they or SASM laundered money through Emberton or misappropriated IDC funds (point 2.4.7.4.)

3.7.2. However, their denial of these allegations was clearly reflected in the second article: “Our clients deny in the strongest terms that SA Steel Mills, Mr Mohamed, Coin Wise, PRIP, the Pro RM Group or any person acting on their behalf, used Emberton or any related transaction, to launder money, inflate invoices, misappropriate funds or dishonestly extract value from SA Steel Mills or the IDC funding structure.”

3.7.3. The article also emphatically states: “Our clients deny that Mr Mohamed, Coin Wise, PRIP, the Pro RM Group or the previous management of SASM stole monies, misappropriated IDC funds, procured false accounting entries for personal benefit, laundered money, inflated invoices, dishonestly used Emberton or any other entity as a conduit, dishonestly misrepresented the financial position of SASM, PRIP or related entities or acted unlawfully in relation to the IDC funding arrangements.”

3.7.4. The complainants go on to observe that no formal charges were preferred against Mohamed. There is no mention of charges against Mohamed in either of the two articles. The second article reports, more generally, that the NPA “is close to deciding whether to charge the suspects linked to alleged fraudulent transactions”.

3.7.5. The publication’s reference to Mohamed’s subsequent arrest in its response to this complaint (points 2.7.4.2 and 2.7.7.2) and the reply of the complainants to this point (2.12 to 2.12.2) are therefore not relevant.

4. Findings

Complaint one: The articles are not in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code for the reasons set out in points 3.1 to 3.1.14 of my Discussion.

Complaint two: The second article is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 for the reasons outlined in points 3.2 to 3.2.11 of my Discussion.

Complaint three: The articles are not in breach of Clauses 1.2 and 1.3 for the reasons set out in points 3.3 to 3.3.3 of my Discussion.

Complaint four: The articles are not in in breach of Clause 1.7 for the reasons outlined in points 3.4 to 3.4.6 of my Discussion. (The alleged breaches of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.8 are dealt with more appropriately elsewhere in relation to other complaints.)

Complaint five: The articles are not in breach of Clauses 2.1 and 11.2 for the reasons set out in points 3.5 to 3.5.5 of my Discussion.

Complaint six: The second article is in breach of Clause 3.3 for the reasons outlined in points 3.6.6 to 3.6.10 of my Discussion.

Complaint seven: The articles are not in breach of the Press Code for the reasons set out in points 3.7 to 3.7.5 of my Discussion.

Firstly, Mail & Guardian is required to publish an apology in print and online to Mr Mohamed and the other complainants for breaching Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 by failing to accurately reflect the ownership of SASM and for omitting the outcome of the arbitration and appeal proceedings as well as for breaching Clause 3.3 by causing reputational harm as a result of these omissions.

Secondly, the apology should be approved by me prior to publication and should be published with a headline including the words “apology” and “Mohamed”.

Thirdly, the respondent should update the online article and should publish a note under the headline: “NOTE: This article has been updated. See Editor’s Note below, including an apology to Rafik Mohamed and others.” The Editor’s Note should state when and how the article has been updated, and should include the full apology as directed above.

Fourthly, the update should be approved by me prior to publication.

The above should:

• be published online 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 online on Mail & Guardian’s landing page for 24 hours as well as on all its platforms where the article was published; and
• be published online on the landing page with a link to the original article.

In addition, the print and online apologies should:

• refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
• end with the sentence, “Visit presscouncil.org.zafor 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

Tyrone August

Deputy Press Ombudsman

15 July 2026

[1] The complainants deny receiving this request (see points 2.11).

[2] https://www.presscouncil.org.za/2023/02/07/siyaya-tv-vs-amabhungane/

[3] https://www.presscouncilsa.org.za/2023/12/15/cornerstone-college-and-sally-ann-hurlin-vs-city-press/

[4] See, for example, my recent finding in Norman Sebaku vs City Press: https://www.presscouncilsa.org.za/2026/04/17/norman-sebaku-vs-city-press/

[5] https://www. idc.co.za/about-us/