Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Bojane Segooa v News24

, ,

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint number: PCSA 000731 (a)

Author: Soyiso Maliti

Headlines:

  • NSFAS hires ex-Daybreak Farms chair who got R625k payout as chicks went unfed, staff unpaid
  • UPDATE | Parliament demands answers over appointment of ex-Daybreak chair at NSFAS

Publication Dates:

  • 15 July 2026
  • 23 July 2026

Dates lodged:

  • 24 July 2026
  • 28 July 2026

Links to stories:

  1. IN GENERAL

Particulars

  1. This finding is based on correspondence by Bojane Segooa, as well as on responses by News24’s political reporter, Soyiso Maliti, and its public editor, George Claassen.
  2. After her complaint about the first article, News24 published a follow-up report. Segooa complains about this as well (as indicated above).

Disclaimer

  1. Much of Segooa’s complaint is about references to Daybreak Foods (read: its financial crisis due to an avian influenza outbreak, and the alleged misrepresentation of deferred Board fees). I am specifically referring to Grounds 4 and 5 of her initial complaint.
  2. I do not believe that Segooa has the standing to complain on behalf of those parties, which is why I am not entertaining those parts of her complaint.
  3. I do entertain issues where it is possible that the reportage on those matters could potentially have affected her adversely.

The first article

  1. The journalist writes that Segooa was appointed by Prof Hlengani Mathebula, NSFAS’s[1] administrator, as a member of its audit and risk committee in May 2026. She is the former chairperson of financially troubled Daybreak Farms.
  2. The article is about the circumstances of her appointment, the lack of public advertising, and her recent association with the troubled Daybreak Farms, raising questions about governance and independence as NSFAS attempts a turnaround to address its financial crisis.

The second articleTop of Form

  1. This story says that Parliament’s Higher Education and Training Portfolio Committee, Tebogo Letsie, was demanding answers from Mathebula over his decision to appoint Segooa to NSFAS’s audit and risk committee without advertising the position.
  2. Letsie also “raised concerns given Segooa’s association with Daybreak Farms during a period marked by significant governance failures, including a R625 000 payout made amid reports of unpaid staff and animal welfare violations”.
  3. Segooa reportedly resigned from Daybreak Farms in May 2025 after securing a R625 000 payout, just before a court order “compelling it to feed 594 000 starving birds, and as staff went unpaid”.
  4. SEGOOA’s complaints

The first article

In general

  1. In correspondence with the Public Advocate, Segooa writes: “The article in question is heavily loaded with false accusations. My reputation is being impugned because I am being painted as self-serving, corrupt, not following governance rules and it is impacting my future employment opportunities. If left unchallenged, my credibility will be diminished, and my reputation will suffer further still.”
  2. This pretty much sums up the heart of her complaint.
  3. She adds that the breaches that she complains about should not be considered in isolation, but also cumulatively. “Taken together, the inaccuracies and omissions create an overall impression that differs materially from the documentary evidence,” she submits.

In particular

Irregular appointment at NSFAS – ‘unilateral’, ‘irregular’

  1. Segooa quotes the article as follows:

a. “Newly installed National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) administrator Hlengani Mathebula has appointed the former chairperson of crisis-stricken Daybreak Farms, Bojane Segooa, to lead the troubled agency’s audit and risk committee”;

b. “Insiders have levelled criticism at Mathebula for failing to advertise the post, but he argues that the recruitment process was conducted within the powers of his office”;

c. “Meanwhile, insiders claimed Segooa’s current post was not advertised. News24 asked an audit and risk official in another department whether this was the case”; and

d. “Speaking on condition of anonymity, the person said it was irregular and unusual for appointments to be made in internal audit positions without them being advertised.”

15. Her complaint is twofold – she says the article inaccurately states that:

a. she was appointed to lead the NSFAS Audit and Risk Committee; and

b. her appointment was irregular in that it was not advertised.

16. Segooa says the article relies on an anonymous opinion to claim irregularity while omitting information about controlling statutory provisions under the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), the National Treasury Regulations, and the NSFAS Act – none of which require audit and risk committee member positions to be publicly advertised.

17. She submits that the article exaggerates her governance responsibilities and creates an inaccurate impression regarding her authority within NSFAS. It is also material because it casts doubt on the lawfulness of her appointment.

18. She says that the above is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 6 and 7.2 of the Press Code.

Wrong date of her appointment

  1. Segooa complains that the following sentence is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code as it gets the chronology wrong: “Segooa was brought in to chair the board on an interim basis in May 2024.”
  2. She says she joined the Board in May 2024 as an ordinary non-executive director and was requested to assume the position of interim chairperson only on 7 February 2025. “Consequently, I served for approximately one year as a Board member but only approximately two months as Interim Chairperson.”
  3. She argues that this is important because the article attributes events occurring throughout the relevant period to her tenure as Interim Chair, “thereby materially overstating both my role and period of responsibility”.

Reasons for her resignation

  1. The statements in dispute are:

a. “Daily Maverick reported at the time that Segooa’s resignation in May 2025, which came ahead of a workers’ strike over unpaid salaries, caught board colleagues off guard. The company was already contending with a worsening crisis of starving birds and a company teetering on the edge of liquidation”;

b. “In May 2025, the National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals secured an urgent interim order from the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg, compelling Daybreak to end inhumane culling methods and provide sufficient feed to 594 000 starving breeder birds at its Bela-Bela and Mookgopong farms. Segooa resigned shortly before that ruling”; and

c. “At the time, Sunday Times reported that Segooa had secured herself a R625 000 payout immediately before stepping down, even as staff went unpaid and chicks were starving.”

23. Segooa does not dispute the chronology of her resignation immediately before references to legal proceedings, unpaid salaries and deteriorating operational conditions. “However, the omission of material contextual information creates an inference that my resignation was connected to impending legal proceedings or constituted an attempt to avoid accountability.” Instead, she says, the documentary evidence demonstrates that her resignation followed credible death threats that were reported to the South African Police Service.

24. See also similar arguments under Point 31 below.

25. She complains that this represents a material omission because it alters the context of her resignation. This, she submits, constitutes a breach of Clauses 1.2, 1.8 and 3.3.1 of the Press Code.

Misleading headline, cumulative effect

  1. Segooa complains that the headline prominently links her appointment at NSFAS with the payment of Board fees at Daybreak Farms and allegations that “chicks went unfed” and staff remained unpaid.
  2. She submits that, while the article contains some additional contextual information later in the text, the headline does not reflect that context. “When read together with the inaccuracies and omissions identified above, the headline creates a materially misleading overall impression that is not supported by the documentary evidence.”
  3. This, she argues, constitutes a breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 3.3.1 and 10 of the Press Code.

The second article

Appointment ‘unilateral’, ‘irregular’

  1. Segooa complains that the article repeatedly characterises her appointment as “unilateral” and “irregular” due to the lack of public advertisements, stating Parliament is probing Section 51(1)(a) PFMA compliance.
  2. She argues that Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) non-executive appointments are governed by technical qualification frameworks under Treasury Regulation 27.1 and NSFAS Act Section 17A, which do not statutorily mandate public job advertisements. She says she was appointed as an independent non-executive ARC member, not an executive officer.

Reasons for Segooa’s resignation

R625 000 payout

  1. Segooa complains that News24 re-published claims that she had “resigned… after securing a R625 000 payout… just before the NSPCA secured a court order compelling it to feed 594 000 starving birds, and as staff went unpaid.” She submits that the R625 000 represented contractually earned, legitimate deferred Board fees for services rendered between January and March 2025, processed under official Delegation of Authority (DoA) frameworks – it was not a severance payout or a windfall.
  2. She adds that the article omitted to state that she had forfeited approximately R2 million in earned Board fees to support company cash flow and salary obligations.

Court order; death threats

  1. The complaint is that the article directly links the timing of her resignation to animal welfare court orders and financial collapse, “creating an inference of fleeing accountability”.
  2. Instead, she submits, her departure was caused by severe physical safety threats, armed intimidation, and explicit death threats after initiating forensic investigations into senior executive fraud. “Omitting these active criminal dockets distorts the core truth of her resignation,” she concludes.

Relief sought

  1. Segooa requests this office to direct News24 to:

a. publish a full correction addressing the factual inaccuracies identified in this complaint with due prominence;

b. publish a retraction of the incorrect and misleading statements, including those relating to her role at NSFAS and the context of her resignation;

c. publish an unreserved apology:

i. acknowledging that the article contained material inaccuracies and omissions that created a misleading impression of her conduct and professional responsibilities;

ii. for mischaracterizing earned Board fees as a “payout” and for omitting whistleblower safety threats;

d. amend the online version of the article so that it accurately reflects the documentary evidence; and

e. correct records across all digital channels to reflect the true statutory ARC framework, Board fee forfeiture, and Hawks corruption dockets.

  1. NEWS24’s REPLY

Irregular appointment at NSFAS

  1. News24 says the complaint is that the article repeatedly:

a. characterises Segooa’s appointment as “unilateral”; and

b. states that her position was not duly advertised.

37. Firstly, Claassen says that, if the position was not advertised – and it was not – then the decision was solely made by the Administrator. “That’s unilateral,” he submits.

38. The reporter, Maliti, says that he quoted from a letter that the chairperson of Parliament’s higher education and training committee wrote to NSFAS about Segooa’s appointment. This information later proved to be wrong. This was corrected in a subsequent letter. Therefore, he quoted the chairperson in good faith and corrected the error in the report when he became aware of the mistake.

39. Secondly, News24 submits that the relevant Act does not suggest that the Administrator may make any appointment without advertising the position. “In fact, the Public Administration regulations encourage government entities to give the public timely, accessible, and accurate information on jobs, and it promotes open processes.”

40. Moreover, the public editor says News24 approached someone who has been doing the same job as Segooa, and who has worked at NSFAS. “This person says her job was advertised and that it is highly unusual and irregular for jobs not to be advertised as was the case of Segooa.”

41. Regarding Segooa’s argument that the relevant regulations do not statutorily mandate public job advertisements, Claassen replies that it is common practice for audit committee jobs to be advertised, and advertising positions promote an open governance process. Government tenders and jobs, such as that of Segooa, are invariably advertised. “And that is why Parliament’s portfolio committee on higher education is asking these questions,” he concludes.

Omissions

  1. News24 says it was not privy to the information regarding death threats, and the information about Segooa forfeiting R2 million is included in the article.
  2. In any case, Claassen argues that the article is not about death threats – it is about the circumstances surrounding Segooa’s appointment at NSFAS, Claassen argues.

Chronology

  1. News24 says the complaint is that the article linked the timing of Segooa’s resignation directly to animal welfare court orders and Daily Farms’ financial collapse, creating an inference of fleeing accountability.
  2. However, “these things happened in that sequence, and we reported that sequence as such – Segooa got paid, and then she left and joined NSFAS later. This is reflected in the article. We do not explicitly say she ran away, but we do highlight that she left when Daybreak was in crisis. That line of reporting is unavoidable. It is factual and accurate.”
  3. In this regard, Claassen cites the following paragraph from the article: “In May 2025, the National Council of the SPCA secured an urgent interim interdict from the Gauteng High Court, compelling Daybreak to end inhumane culling methods and provide sufficient feed to 594 000 starving breeder birds at its Bela-Bela and Mookgopong farms. Segooa resigned shortly before that ruling.”
  4. He concludes that the article does not go into the merits of whether Segooa deserved to be paid or not. “We merely reported what happened and when it happened.”

Error

  1. News24 acknowledges that the first report contained an error regarding Segooa’s appointment.
  2. However, Claassen says that the journalist merely quoted from a letter by the chairperson of Parliament’s higher education and training committee to NSFAS about Segooa’s appointment. Later, the reporter was told that there was a mistake in its letter and that it had been corrected. This mistake concerned the citing of the wrong legislation.
  3. “We note that Ms Segooa has an issue with the legislation cited. The error was from the chair, and he corrected it in a subsequent letter. News24, therefore, quoted the chair in good faith and corrected the error in updating the report when we became aware of the mistake,” Claassen submits.

In conclusion

  1. News24 says the matter was in the public interest, as taxpayers’ money was involved in Segooa’s compensation. It maintains that the article was accurate, and that “Parliament got involved because of our valid questions”.
  2. Moreover, she was extensively quoted, either from other media reports about her employment at Daybreak Farms, or by approaching her directly, thereby affording her a right of reply, as required by the Press Code.

D. REJOINDER

  1. Cognisant of the fact that Segooa’s responses regarding the two articles are bound to overlap, I nevertheless document them separately.

The first article

Fairness, public interest

  1. Segooa replies that the issue before the Press Council is not whether News24 was entitled to report on the appointment or on Daybreak Foods (read: matters of public interest) – it is about whether the reporting presented material facts fairly and in context, as required by the Press Code.
  2. She says the fact that Parliament asked questions regarding the appointment did not relieve News24 of its obligation to ensure that its reporting was accurate, balanced and fairly contextualised.

Error

  1. Segooa notes News24’s reply to this matter, as documented under Points 48–50 above. However, she says it demonstrates that the original article contained an inaccurate legal premise which formed part of the narrative. This supports her submission that “aspects of the original reporting were not fully accurate when first published,” she contends.

Material omissions

  1. Segooa replies that News24‘s response largely defends the facts it chose to publish but that it does not explain why equally material contextual information was omitted.

Fair reflection of response

  1. Segooa acknowledges that News24 did afford her a right of reply – but she says that was not her complaint. She argues that compliance with Clause 1.8 of the Press Code requires more than merely requesting comment – the material aspects of that response should also be fairly reflected (which did not happen in this case). This, she argues, resulted in an incomplete account of the relevant facts.

Chronology

  1. Segooa says News24 argues that it simply reported the sequence of events leading to her resignation, which she does not dispute. However, the issue is that the article omitted important context (read: her governance interventions and the documented circumstances of her resignation), creating the misleading impression that she resigned because of the company’s operational crisis.

The second article

Contextual fairness, public interest

  1. Segooa says News24‘s response repeatedly emphasises that her appointment to NSFAS was a matter of public interest and that Parliament subsequently questioned aspects of the appointment – however, she has never disputed either proposition.
  2. “The issue before the Press Council is not whether News24 was entitled to report on the appointment or on Daybreak Foods. The issue is whether the reporting presented material facts fairly and in context, as required by the Press Code,” she submits.

No response to complaint about material omissions

  1. Segooa says a central feature of her complaint is that the reporting omitted material facts that were necessary for readers to understand the circumstances surrounding her tenure at Daybreak Foods. “News24’s response largely defends the facts that it chose to publish but does not explain why equally material contextual information was omitted.”
  2. In particular, she says the response inter alia does not meaningfully address the omission of:

a. the severe financial distress affecting Daybreak Foods before the complainant became interim chairperson, including the impact of the 2023 avian influenza outbreak;

b. her limited period as Interim Chairperson; and

c. the Board’s decision to place the company into Business Rescue as part of a statutory restructuring process.

64. These omissions materially affect the overall impression conveyed to readers, she opines.

Comment not fairly reflected

  1. Segooa says she does not complain that News24 failed to seek comment from her. Rather, she says that the reportage does not properly reflect her response and the contextual information provided.

Chronology ‘not the issue’

  1. In response to News24’s submission that it merely reported the sequence of events leading to the complainant’s resignation, Segooa says that she does not dispute the chronology – her concern is that it is presented without equally material contextual information, creating an inference that she had resigned because of the operational crisis confronting the company.

E. ADJUDICATION

Segooa’s ‘irregular’, ‘unilateral’ appointment at NSFAS

  1. The complaint is that it is false to have reported that her appointment was “irregular” because the position was not advertised.
  2. I consider News24’s submission that:

a. the relevant Act does not suggest that the Administrator may make any appointment without advertising the position, and that the Public Administration Regulations encourage government entities to give the public timely, accessible and accurate information on jobs and promote open processes; and

b. it is common practice for audit committee jobs to be advertised, and that advertising positions promote an open governance process. Government tenders and jobs, such as that of Segooa, are invariably advertised.

69. I do not contest these arguments.

70. However, News24 does not consider Section 17A(1) and (3)(a) of the NSFAS Act 56 of 1999, which provides that, “Transfers all statutory powers, duties, and functions of the NSFAS Board and Accounting Authority directly to the appointed Administrator upon administration. Grants the Administrator full legal authority to directly appoint qualified audit committee members under Treasury Regulation 27.1.4.”

71. Unless there is any evidence to the contrary, this means that Segooa’s appointment was:

a. not “irregular”, because the position did not have to be advertised; and

b. indeed “unilateral”, as correctly reported.

72. I need to point out, though, that the article does not state as a fact that Segooa’s appointment was irregular – it consistently quotes “insiders” as making that allegation. (See Point 14 above.)

Segooa’s role at NSFAS

  1. News24 does not reply to her objection that the reportage has misrepresented her role at NSFAS – and that this had dire consequences for her reputation and future.
  2. The following introductory sentence, which Segooa also quotes, is at the heart of this matter: “Newly installed National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) administrator Hlengani Mathebula has appointed the former chairperson of crisis-stricken Daybreak Farms, Bojane Segooa, to lead the troubled agency’s audit and risk committee.” (my emphasis)
  3. This, Segooa argues correctly, is inaccurate. She was indeed not appointed to “lead” the relevant committee. In an official letter of appointment, dated 25 May 2026, Mathebula states that he is “pleased to confirm your appointment as a standing member of the Audit and Risk Committee of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme…” (my emphasis) Clearly, she was not appointed as the chairperson or as someone who would “lead” the committee.
  4. It is also noticeable that the journalist got it right in a blurb underneath the headline. It reads, “Professor Hlengani Mathebula, NSFAS administrator, has raised eyebrows after appointing former Daybreak Farms chairperson Bojane Segooa as a member of the scheme’s audit and risk committee.” (my emphasis)
  5. This is confirmed lower down in the article.
  6. This mistake is significant, as Segooa rightfully points out under Point 17 above, as NSFAS is facing serious financial, administrative, and governance crises – creating the inference that she should take responsibility for that situation.
  7. I cannot exclude the possibility that this could have caused Segooa unnecessary harm, as the inference is that the crises existed while she was at the helm.

Wrong date

  1. The complaint is that the article incorrectly states that Segooa was appointed as the chair of the Daybreak Farms Board in May 2024, while she assumed that position only on 7 February 2025.
  2. Her argument is that this mistake has overstated both her role and period of responsibility at that company.
  3. News24 does not reply to this part of the complaint.
  4. This matter could be important as Daybreak Farms reportedly found itself in dire straits for a variety of reasons, which, according to the article, is when “Segooa was brought in to chair the board on an interim basis in May 2024”.
  5. Let’s look at some relevant facts, as I believe that there was a misunderstanding on News24’s part. According to credible evidence, provided by Segooa, she was appointed as chairperson of Daybreak Farms’ audit committee (not of the Board) on 4 June 2024, and as interim chairperson of the Board of Daybreak Farms on 7 February 2025.
  6. The question, though, is whether this mistake has caused her unnecessary harm. In this case, I do not believe so. She resigned on 8 May 2025 – approximately three months after being appointed as interim chairperson of the Board. At the time, when she was chairperson of the Board, she received a payout of R625 000; there were unpaid worker strikes; and an urgent court order obtained by the NSPCA concerning starving chickens at the producer’s facilities.
  7. The question of when she was appointed as chairperson of the Board is therefore irrelevant and immaterial.

Segooa’s resignation from Daybreak Farms

  1. The complaint is that the article infers that Segooa’s resignation was unfairly and incorrectly connected to impending legal proceedings or constituted an attempt to avoid accountability – while her resignation followed “credible” death threats.
  2. I believe that News24’s reply to this issue, as documented under Points 44 – 46, is reasonable.

Misleading headline

  1. The complaint is that the headline prominently links Segooa’s appointment at NSFAS with the payment of Board fees from Daybreak Farms and allegations that “chicks went unfed” and staff remained unpaid.
  2. News24 does not respond to this part of the complaint.
  3. The headline indeed refers to both her appointment at NSFAS and the R625 000 payment that she received from Daybreak Farms. This is factually correct.
  4. I also do not accept that the impression was created that the two issues were related in the sense that the one has caused the other.

Error

  1. The mistake in the first article was not News24’s fault – the journalist merely reported information that he had received from Parliament. News24 cannot be blamed for reporting, in good faith, information that it had received from Parliament. Instead, kudos to News24 for correcting that mistake promptly.

Severance payoff

  1. Severance pay is money an employer gives to workers when their job ends through no fault of their own, such as during a layoff, downsizing, or company restructuring. It helps support the employee financially while they look for a new job.
  2. Segooa complains that she earned that money.
  3. I do not have any evidence for or against her argument and therefore cannot come to any sort of a conclusion whether this was a severance payoff.

The article as a whole

  1. I now return to Segooa’s correspondence with the Public Advocate, as documented under Point 11 above. The central question is whether the article portrays her as self-serving, corrupt, and disregarding governance rules.
  2. I do not believe this, inter alia, for the following reasons:

a. The article inter alia quotes her as saying: “All payments I received were for services rendered and were fully compliant with the company’s delegation of authority policy. Importantly, I made the conscious decision together with other board members to forfeit nearly R2 million in board fees in order to prioritise critical needs such as employee salaries and animal welfare costs.” This does not support an inference that she was self-serving or corrupt; and

b. The report does imply that she disregarded governance rules – she did not appoint herself.

Finding

Segooa’s role at NSFAS

  1. The statement in the introductory sentence to the article that Segooa was appointed to “lead” NSFAS’s audit and risk committee is inaccurate. This is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code which states, “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”.
  2. This potentially caused unnecessary harm to her reputation. This is in breach of Section 3.3 of the Press Code that states, “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation.”

Wrong date

  1. The complaint that the article incorrectly states that Segooa was appointed as the chairperson of the Daybreak Farms Board in May 2024, while she assumed that position only on 7 February 2025, is upheld. This is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Code.

Position not duly advertised; irregular appointment

  1. This part of the complaint is upheld because NSFAS was not obliged to advertise the position and the Administrator had the authority to appoint qualified audit committee members directly. This is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Code which reads, “The media shall present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by … material omissions …”

The rest of the complaint

  1. The rest of the complaint is

Sanction

  1. News24 is directed to apologise to Segooa for:

a. inaccurately stating that she was appointed to “lead” NSFAS’s audit and risk committee and for potentially causing unnecessary harm to her dignity and reputation; and

b. omitting to report that the Administrator was not obliged to advertise the position, meaning that her appointment was not “irregular”.

105. It is reprimanded for inaccurately stating that Segooa was appointed as the chairperson of Daybreak Farms’ Board in May 2024, while she assumed that position only on 7 February 2025, and is directed to correct this mistake.

106. 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 “Segooa”;
  • refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
  • end with the sentence, “Visit 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

15 August 2026

[1] National Student Financial Aid Scheme.

 

Related Posts