Lebelo and Afronex vs News24

Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August

7 October 2026

Finding: Complaint 000779

Article:
Author: Azarrah Karrim
Date of publication: 11 August 2026
Publication: News24
Headline:
McKenzie’s men: Fat salary increases for National Library execs after ex-SARS man’s advice
https://www.news24.com/investigations/mckenzies-men-fat-salary-increases-for-national-library-execs-after-ex-sars-mans-advice-20260810-1056

Particulars
This complaint is based on a written complaint by Mr Luther Lebelo in his personal capacity and on behalf of Afronex Solutions (Pty) Ltd in his capacity as its Managing Director; a written reply on behalf of News24 by journalist Azarrah Karrim and Public Editor Dr George Claassen; and a written response by Mr Lebelo.

Complaint
The complainants submit that the articles are in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 3.3 and 10.1 of the Press Code. They subsequently ask in their rejoinder to News24’s written reply that a breach of Clause 1.9 be considered as well.

1. Summary of article

1.1. According to the article, a member of the Patriotic Alliance (PA) oversaw “fat salary increases” at the National Library of South Africa (NLSA). An associate of PA leader Gayton McKenzie – who is Sport, Arts and Culture Minister – is “seemingly” the chief beneficiary.

1.1.1. The NLSA said the increases were implemented as part of an organisational restructuring. However, it seems that CEO Ralph Links received an increase before this process was finalised.

1.1.2. According to the minutes of an NLSA Board meeting in February, the Public Protector is investigating complaints concerning the allegedly irregular appointment of Links as CEO. He was acting municipal manager of the Central Karoo District Municipality when McKenzie was mayor in 2022 and 2023.

1.2. The increases were approved by the Board under NLSA chairperson Bernardo Maralack, a member of the PA. Links’ annual salary reportedly increased from R1.8 million to R2.6 million and the annual salary of chief financial officer Seeiso Tlali went up from R1.4 million to R2.1 million.

1.2.1. The increases were reportedly implemented following a salary grading report by former SA Revenue Service (SARS) executive Luther Lebelo.

1.3. Maralack “seemingly has no experience related to library services”. His professional experience is “evidently” limited to security in the Winelands area and property development. Apparently, he does not have any previous board experience in government.

1.3.1. According to McKenzie’s spokesperson, Stacey-Lee Khojane, there is no conflict of interest in appointing a member of any political party to serve as a member of the NLSA Board or any other entity reporting to the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture (DSAC).

1.4. Soon after Links’ appointment, he and Tlali allegedly received salary increases “which appear to lack the concurrence required by the National Library Act”. The Act requires that remuneration must be decided in consultation with the Department of Public Service and Administration, approved by the Minister and with the concurrence of the Finance Minister.

1.4.1. The Department of Finance said it had not received any requests for concurrence of this nature before from the DSAC or its entities.

1.4.2. In June, Maralack drafted a report to the DSAC prompted by concerns about the increases and attempted to justify the increases as “an entity-wide restructuring of job grading scales”. However, documents seen by News24 suggest that the CEO’s salary “may already have been increased months before the board approved that restructuring”.

1.4.3. In his report to the DSAC in June, Maralack said the service provider “found that NLSA salaries were below the market compared to state-owned/affiliated entities” and that the Board approved implementation. He did not clarify whether the Board approved the actual increases.

1.4.4. According to the evidence seen by News24, the Board “seemingly” approved the Paterson system retrospectively.

1.5. A May 2025 parliamentary question by the DA’s Thamsanqa Mabhena shows that the CEO’s salary was already R2.5 million and that Links was appointed just two weeks earlier. However, internal Board minutes from February 2026 confirm that the Equate-to-Paterson transition had only then been approved.

1.5.1. According to the November 2025 Board minutes, it was Lebelo’s Afronex report that formed the basis for the Board’s initial approval to proceed with an implementation plan.

1.6. News24 reportedly found evidence suggesting that the benchmarking process may have been designed to inflate salary targets because, according to Maralack’s report, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) were used as a benchmark.

1.6.1. However, the NLSA is not an SOE, “which typically pay[s] substantially more than entities under government departments. Benchmarking against SOEs like these would create a disparity, making NLSA salaries seem inappropriately low.”

1.6.2. Emergence Human Capital consultant Gordon Macqueen told News24 it was subcontracted by UAN Solutions in June 2023 to conduct job evaluations using the Paterson method and supply pay-by-grade data “based on the comparator market requested for the assignment”. This reportedly means that SOEs were requested as the comparator.

1.6.3. Khojane said McKenzie has written to the NLSA about his concerns regarding the organisational reengineering process and said the DSAC was reviewing the NLSA’s report. She said the transition affected 114 employees, with an average 14.22% increase at an annual cost of R9.2 million.

1.7. According to Khojane, Afronex Solutions was appointed to lead the reengineering process following a competitive process.

1.7.1. Lebelo was suspended from SARS in 2019, where he served as the group executive of employee relations, in response to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Tax Administration and Governance at SARS (the Nugent Commission).

1.7.2. Lebelo reportedly played a role in events surrounding the suspension of then SARS deputy commissioner Ivan Pillay in 2014. The commission also heard evidence of his role in the appointment of a legal team to gather and prepare documents containing evidence that Pillay and another employee were linked to a ‘rogue unit’’ within SARS.

1.7.3. Lebelo said Afronex was appointed in July 2025 to “review and develop a new organisation structure” and was “not appointed to produce a formal grading or salary benchmarking framework”. He described grading work as “a limited desktop and indicative exercise”.

1.7.4. However, according to the November 2025 Board minutes, Afronex produced “job grading and salary benchmarking reports”. There is no suggestion in the report that it is “limited” or “indicative”.

1.7.5. Lebelo said Afronex was not appointed or authorised “to determine, recommend, approve or implement individual salaries” and described its report as “a genuine, forward-looking organisational-structure review [that was] not commissioned to provide retrospective justification for salary increases”.

1.7.6. Regarding his past, Lebelo said he had completed all the declarations and disclosures required during the procurement process.

2. Arguments

Lebelo and Afronex

2.1. The complaints often overlap, in particular the first two. For this reason, I have grouped these two complaints together. I have attempted to separate the rest into four different complaints in an effort to avoid repetition.

2.2. Complaints one and two: The complainants state that their main complaint relates to Clause 10.1, but add that it should be read together with Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 and, as a subsidiary, Clause 1.7. They submit that News24’s own chronology does not support the sequence that the executive salary increases occurred “after ex-SARS man’s advice”.

2.2.1. They add that News24’s own pre-publication questions demonstrate that it recognised the possibility that the CEO’s remuneration position predates Afronex and, in fact, expressly asked whether Afronex’s work had retrospectively justified earlier increases (these questions are included in an annexure).

2.2.2. They argue that News24 could have investigated the chronology further, stated that the sequence was disputed, described its theory of a possible retrospective justification as an allegation, reflected the “uncertainty” in the headline or framed the headline around the undisputed fact that Afronex subsequently performed relevant organisational work.

2.2.3. However, they say, News24 opted for a more damaging proposition – that the increases came after the advice. They argue that the fact that Afronex’s explanation appears later in the article does not cure the separate question of whether the headline and opening of the article fairly reflect what News24’s own enquiry had revealed.

2.3. Complaint three: This complaint relates to Clause 1.2 and reinforces the complaint about Clause 10.1: “It concerns the attribution of causation which News24’s headline and opening invite the ordinary reasonable reader to make.”

2.3.1. The complainants point out that News24 reports that Maralack attributed the salary increases to external benchmarking conducted by Emergence. An Emergence consultant explained to News24 that it had conducted Paterson job evaluations and provided Pay-by-Grade information, but had not determined or approved the remuneration of individual NLSA employees because such decisions belong to the Board.

2.3.2. The complainants say this distinction is materially the same as that made by Afronex. However, they argue, News24 appears to give differential treatment to these explanations: it appears to accept the distinction when advanced by Emergence, but discounts it when advanced by Afronex.

2.3.3. They note that News24 further reports that the DSAC distinguishes between Afronex’s role in the broader organisational reengineering process and that of a separate service provider involved in the benchmarking underpinning the Pay-by-Grade work. They complain that this distinction is not reflected in the headline or opening of the article.

2.3.4. They maintain that Afronex’s November 2025 report could not have caused or influenced the making of Links’ salary increase. By News24’s own account, they say, this was already reflected by May 2025.

2.3.5. They submit that any suggestion that Afronex’s later work was used to justify, regularise or ratify that earlier position would be a different allegation and require “its own factual foundation and appropriate qualification”.

2.3.6. The complainants further state that the article records separate providers, separate functions and a competing attribution of benchmarking. They point out that Clause 1.2 requires News24 to reflect the material context.

2.4. Complaint four: The complainants submit that the article reports as fact that Lebelo
“played a key role in the institution’s destruction during the state capture era” and regard this as an exceptionally serious attribution of personal responsibility.

2.4.1. They further question the relevance and manner of this reference to Lebelo’s SARS’ history in an article on the NLSA procurement. They also maintain that the article does not attribute the phrase to an identified source or clearly present it as News24’s comment or interpretation.

2.4.2. Instead, they submit, it is presented as fact even though there is no finding in those terms in the Nugent Commission. They also suggest that the 2022 Press Ombud ruling, Luther Lebelo vs News24, be considered in full .

2.4.3. The complainants add that the present formulation creates an additional concern in relation to Clause 3.3. They ask whether the “reputational sting created by an unqualified assertion that [Lebelo] helped destroy one public institution” was necessary and adequately supported in an article which presented him as the adviser behind alleged impropriety at another institution.

2.4.4. While they acknowledge that there is substantial public interest in remuneration at the NLSA, they contend that this does not remove the Press Code’s requirements of accuracy, context, fair attribution and care regarding dignity and reputation.

2.5. Complaint five: With regard to the “Inflated comparison” section of the article, the complainants object to the suggestion that the benchmarking process may have been designed to inflate salary targets and say this reinforces “the cumulative Clause 1.2 problem”.

2.5.1. They say Eskom and Transnet are used as illustrations of high-paying SOEs “against which comparison could produce elevated salary targets”. However, they submit, News24 acknowledges in the article that “it is not clear which entities were used in this process”.

2.5.2. Despite this, they complain, the examples were placed immediately beneath the heading “Inflated comparison” and gave the reader specific illustrations of how the alleged inflation may have occurred.

2.5.3. They submit that, together with the headline, Lebelo’s SARS history and “the disputed causal sequence”, this reinforces the impression that Afronex’s exercise was “the mechanism through which the impugned salary outcome was engineered”.

2.6. Complaint six: This complaint is related to the previous complaint and argues that the article must be assessed as a whole. The complainants again refer to Clause 1.2 and note that it is concerned with distortion, exaggeration, misrepresentation, material omissions or misleading summarisation.

2.6.1. They argue that a report “may therefore contain individually accurate facts yet create a materially misleading overall impression through their selection, sequencing, emphasis and juxtaposition”.

2.6.2. They maintain that the “cumulative narrative” of the article introduces the controversy about salary increases “through political and impropriety frames”. Among others, they cite the references to “McKenzie’s men” in the headline, the description of Lebelo and Afronex as the advisers before the increases and the suggestion in the “Inflated comparison” section that the benchmark may have been designed to increase salary targets.

2.6.3. They claim that the materially corrective or qualifying facts – “the May remuneration chronology, the competing Emergence attribution [of benchmarking] and the separate-provider distinction” – appear elsewhere in the body of the article.

2.6.4. The complainants contend that the dominant narrative of the article depends upon “a causal sequence and degree of attribution” which is not established by News24’s own material.

2.6.5. They add that News24 was aware of the following before the article was published: the “contrary” chronology, Afronex’s explanation, the Emergence attribution and the DSAC’s separate service provider distinction. They argue that this is directly relevant to whether the distortion under Clause 1.2 was negligent or intentional.

2.7. The complainants summarise the breaches of the Press Code as follows:

• Clause 10.1: They maintain that the headline is misleading because it presents the executive salary increases as occurring after their advice whereas the article reflects the CEO’s increased remuneration as having occurred before Afronex’s appointment and report. Furthermore, they say, News24 does not establish the “necessary chronology” for the CFO’s salary increase.
• Clause 1.1: They regard the assertion that the increases were implemented after the Afronex report as inaccurate or, at the very least, as unfair.
• Clause 1.2: They maintain that the article distorts “the overall picture” by foregrounding them as causal actors “without carrying the earlier CEO chronology, competing Emergence attribution and separate-provider distinction into its dominant framing”.
• Clause 1.3: They submit that the statement that Lebelo “played a key role in [SARS’s] destruction during the state capture era” is presented as fact although the Nugent Commission report does not establish such a sweeping degree of personal responsibility. They also maintain that the “Inflated comparison” section of the article “conveys more certainty than the unidentified comparator evidence permits”.
• Clause 1.7. They submit that News24’s own pre-publication questions indicate that it recognised the chronological uncertainty concerning the CEO’s remuneration, yet it published “the stronger causal sequence categorically rather than resolving or clearly reflecting that doubt”.
• Clause 3.3: They maintain that the “combined presentation” causes unnecessary reputational harm by linking Afronex to allegedly irregular executive remuneration and making Lebelo the personal protagonist of that narrative “through an exceptionally serious historical characterisation”.

2.8. The complainants seek the following relief: (a) amending the headline so that it no longer states or implies that the salary increases of the CEO and CFO occurred as a result of their advice; (b) correcting the opening paragraphs to accurately reflect the chronology and any unresolved questions concerning “causation”; (c) publishing an apology and correction for creating the impression that the advice of the complainants preceded or caused the salary increases; (d) a statement that News24’s own information reflects the CEO’s remuneration at about “the complained-of level” by May 2025; (e) clarifying that the article did not establish the chronology necessary to state categorically that the CFO’s increase followed Afronex’s advice; (f) clarifying that News24’s article itself reports Maralack attributing the increases to external benchmarking by Emergence and also reports the DSAC’s distinction between Afronex’s reengineering role and that of a separate service provider involved in the Pay-by-Grade benchmarking; (g) correcting or qualifying the statement that Lebelo “played a key role in [SARS’s] destruction during the state capture era” so that it is not presented as an established finding; (h) clarifying in the “Inflated comparison” section that News24 did not establish that Eskom or Transnet were among the institutions actually used as comparators; (i) placing an Editor’s Note beneath the online headline recording the “amendment, correction, apology and Press Council ruling”; and (j) publishing the correction or apology on every News24 platform on which the headline or “materially similar framing” was published.

2.9. The complainants point out that they have not provided any confidential NLSA project reports as annexures. They say their central case does not presently depend upon disclosing such reports.

2.9.1. However, should it be considered necessary to determine a material dispute, they say that Afronex will seek the NLSA’s written consent before producing a particular confidential document.

News24

2.10. Complaints one and two: The respondent points out that the original headline has since been changed to “McKenzie’s men: How NLSA chairperson defended salary review for CEO after ex-SARS man’s advice”. It submits that the word “after” in the current headline is supported by the evidence.

2.10.1. It says that parliamentary questions in May 2025 reflect the NLSA CEO’s salary as R2.5 million (the same amount it had been increased to, according to News24’s source) and that, on 4 November 2025, Afronex produced a report that recommends that “EXCO and the Board are advised to formally approve this integrated grading model as the institutional baseline for future remuneration calibration, policy formulation and HR system migration”.

2.10.2. The respondent further points out that the NLSA Board minutes of 12 November 2025 state that the organisational restructuring was approved for implementation based on the “job grading and salary benchmarking reports prepared by Afronex Solutions”.

2.10.3. New24 submits that the salary adjustments were therefore implemented after Afronex’s report and after the Board’s approval of the Paterson system, which was based on Afronex’s work. It says the word “after” in the headline accurately describes this sequence.

2.10.4. The respondent contends that the word “advice” is supported as well. It argues that Afronex’s report is not a passive organisational plan but explicitly recommends Board approval of the Paterson–Equate model “as the institutional baseline for remuneration”.

2.10.5. News24 suggests that, although the Board chairperson’s own report on 23 June 2026 states that the move to Paterson was “as per the recommendation from the service provider that was assisting the organisation with the re-engineering process”, namely Emergence, it was actually Afronex’s report that was included in the Board minutes as the basis for approval.

2.10.6. It further states that, although Afronex says in its pre-publication response that it “was not appointed to determine, recommend, approve or implement salary increases”, the company’s own report declares that its purpose includes “support[ing] remuneration alignment by linking each Paterson grade to benchmarking data” and recommends that “EXCO and the Board formally approve the integrated Paterson–Equate grading model as the institutional baseline for remuneration”.

2.10.7. News24 submits that while Afronex may not have set individual salary amounts, its report provided the grading framework that the Board approved and that “directly underpinned” the salary adjustments.

2.10.8. It adds that the word “after” in the headline describes sequence – “not causation”. The article reports the sequence as follows: Afronex’s report came first, followed by the Board’s approval and the salary adjustments. News24 says this is indeed accurate.

2.10.9. It says the article does not claim that Afronex “caused” the earlier salary increases but refers to sequence. The article simply states that Afronex’s report was followed by the Board’s approval and the salary adjustments.

2.10.10. In response to the five editorial options that the complainants submit that News24 could have taken (see point 2.2.2), the respondent maintains that these options were not necessary.

2.10.11. It says that News24 did investigate the chronology further through pre-publication engagement with Afronex and by obtaining Board minutes, the report to the DSAC, the collective agreement and parliamentary records. It maintains that News24 was entitled to raise the question of retrospective justification on the basis of the documented chronology.

2.10.12. It submits that the allegation that Afronex’s report could have been used to retrospectively approve the CEO’s salary is based on evidence before News24 and points out that it is in the November 2025 Board minutes that Afronex’s report was used to kickstart the reorganisation process that Maralack speaks of in his report. It is only then, it says, that discussions of implementation take place.

2.10.13. News24 states that this does not place the blame on the complainants. If the allegation of retrospective justification is true, it says, it was because of the NLSA’s decision to use Afronex’s report to justify the increase.

2.10.14. The article does not claim that Lebelo knew about this. In fact, the respondent says, his assertion that “Afronex’s November 2025 report could not have caused or influenced the making of a CEO remuneration increase” is precisely why News24 raised concerns.

2.10.15. Regarding the complaint that the article did not establish the chronology necessary to state categorically that the CFO’s salary increase followed Afronex’s advice, the respondent says the Board’s approval of the Paterson system and the collective agreement’s implementation of salary adjustments included executive directors.

2.10.16. It states that there is therefore no basis to exclude Tlali from the scope of the article’s reporting. Despite this, it says, nowhere does the article state that the CFO’s increase followed Afronex’s advice.

2.10.17. Regarding the complaint that News24 recognised chronological uncertainty in its pre-publication questions yet published “the stronger, categorical causal framing rather than resolving or disclosing the doubt”, the respondent states that News24 did verify its information.

2.10.18. It says News24’s pre-publication questions to Afronex were part of this process. However, it says, Afronex’s answers did not resolve the chronology question in its favour and instead raised further questions.

2.10.19. For example, it says, Afronex replied that it was “not aware” that salary increases had already been implemented. However, it argues, this does not establish that no increases had occurred – only that Afronex was not aware of them.

2.10.20. The respondent also argues that, although Afronex said its assignment was “a genuine, forward-looking organisational-structure review” and not “commissioned to provide retrospective justification for salary increases”, Afronex’s own report recommended Board approval of the Paterson–Equate model “as the institutional baseline for remuneration” (point 2.10.1). News24 claims that this is precisely the kind of framework that could be used to justify salary levels, “whether prospectively or retrospectively”.

2.10.21. The respondent maintains that there was no “doubtful information” that News24 failed to verify. It says that its information was verified through pre-publication engagement with Afronex and corroborated by records obtained by News24.

2.11. Complaint three: In response to the complaint that the article was not truthful, accurate or fair because it presented a causal sequence that was not supported by the evidence, the respondent submits that the article reported that salary increases were implemented following a salary grading report by Afronex.

2.11.1. It maintains that the evidence supports this and states that Afronex produced the Paterson–Equate grading report in November 2025, the Board approved the Paterson system on the CEO’s recommendation in February 2026 and salary adjustments were formalised under a collective agreement in March 2026.

2.11.2. The respondent also points out that the article included Afronex’s right of reply and reported its position that it was not appointed to determine salary increases. The article was therefore fair in presenting the documentary evidence of Afronex’s role as well as the company’s own characterisation of its role.

2.11.3. It further maintains that the complainants’ objection rests on Afronex’s own description of its mandate. However, it argues, a service provider’s characterisation of its role does not override the documentary evidence of what its report actually says and recommends or what the Board actually did with it.

2.11.4. News24 believes it was entitled to report on the substance of Afronex’s report and the actions of the Board – “not merely on Afronex’s preferred description of its mandate”.

2.11.5. The respondent further maintains that the article clearly distinguishes between Afronex and Emergence: Afronex’s role involved an “organisational-structure review” and the Paterson–Equate grading report, while Emergence was responsible for the benchmarking work that informed the salary adjustments.

2.11.6. It says it is a mischaracterisation to claim that News24 accepted Emergence’s distinction that providing technical grading or benchmarking input does not make it “the decision-maker” yet it discounted the same distinction in relation to Afronex.

2.11.7. It argues that Afronex’s own report goes beyond neutral technical input and explicitly recommends that the Board approves the integrated grading model as the institutional baseline for “future remuneration calibration”.

2.11.8. It regards this as “language that goes beyond providing data to actively recommending that the Board adopt its model as the basis for remuneration” – which the Board then did. It maintains there is no double standard in how it treated the information; it says there was a difference in the evidence.

2.11.9. The respondent dismisses as unreliable Maralack’s comments that attribute the move to Paterson to a recommendation by Emergence (point 2.10.5). It says the only evidence that Emergence was solely responsible for the benchmarking that justified the salary increases comes from his report of 23 June 2026, which it describes as discredited.

2.11.10. It adds that, in the DSAC’s response to News24 dated 24 August 2026, the Department replied that the NLSA “has accepted that the process it followed requires remediation” and that “[s]tatutory steps for executive remuneration under the National Library of South Africa Act may not have been followed and are being investigated”. It argues that this admission undermines Maralack’s account of how the salary adjustments were determined.

2.12. Complaint four: The respondent submits that the article contextualises the statement that Lebelo “played a key role in [SARS’s] destruction during the state capture era”. It says the article goes into detail about the Nugent Commission and its findings on his conduct.

2.12.1. The respondent refers to the Nugent Commission’s findings on the systematic failure of governance and integrity at SARS, where Lebelo served as a senior executive under then Commissioner Tom Moyane.

2.12.2. In particular, it refers to the Commission’s final report, which notes with approval that Lebelo’s delegated authority to dismiss employees had been removed and to the finding that Lebelo sought to perpetuate the narrative of a “rogue unit”. It points out that SARS suspended Lebelo in direct response to the Nugent Commission’s report.

2.12.3. News24 maintains that a reasonable reader would understand that the characterisation of his “key role” in SARS was based on the Nugent Commission’s findings. It argues that the article does not present it as an unsupported assertion of fact, but provides a context that allows the reader to assess the basis for the characterisation.

2.12.4. The respondent also rejects the argument that the reference that Lebelo “played a key role in the institution’s destruction” goes beyond what the Commission found. It contends that this formulation is supported by the Nugent Commission’s findings.

2.12.5. It points out again that Lebelo’s delegated authority to dismiss employees was removed and that he attempted to perpetuate the “rogue unit” narrative, which the Commission says “did great damage to SARS and the people of South Africa”.

2.12.6. It argues that the Commission’s findings therefore support the characterisation that Lebelo played a key role in what happened to SARS. The Commission identified Lebelo’s conduct as contributing to that failure, removed his authority and recommended disciplinary action.

2.12.7. In light of this, News24 submits, the formulation that Lebelo played a key role in the destruction of SARS is a fair and accurate characterisation of the Nugent Commission’s findings.

2.12.8. With regard to the Press Ombud ruling of June 2022, the respondent states that this ruling is different from the current matter in two respects. Firstly, the breach of Clause 1.2 in that instance was about the specific word “hitman” that was misattributed to the Zondo Commission when, in fact, it came from a book and was used only by Lebelo himself.

2.12.9. It points out that the current article does not use this word and that it provides the Commission’s findings as the basis for the characterisation that Lebelo “played a key role in the institution’s destruction”.

2.12.10. Secondly, it notes that the 2022 Press Ombud ruling dismissed the complaints under Clauses 1.1 and 3.3 and found that the article’s reporting on Lebelo’s role at SARS – including the suspension of senior officials and the “rogue unit” narrative – was true or substantially true and based on the Nugent Commission’s findings.

2.12.11. It further states that the Ombud specifically held that it was “reasonable to infer that – as a member of SARS’ senior management at the time – [Lebelo] is included” in the Commission’s findings about the senior management under Moyane.

2.12.12. The Ombud also referred to the Commission’s statement about the removal of Lebelo’s delegated authority as “a clear indication that, by implication, the Nugent Commission included the complainant in certain events that transpired during Moyane’s tenure”.

2.12.13. News24 argues that the 2022 ruling therefore establishes that it is entitled to report on Lebelo’s SARS history based on the Nugent Commission’s findings.

2.12.14. The respondent further points out that the 2022 ruling dismissed the complaint in relation to Clause 3.3 and found that the article meets the key requirements of this clause, in particular that the information in the article is true or substantially true.

2.12.15. It submits that, in the current complaint, the characterisation of Lebelo’s role at SARS is also grounded in the Nugent Commission’s findings. It says the article “contextualises” the characterisation in the Commission’s findings. As such, it believes, there is no basis for the complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 3.3.

2.12.16. Regarding the argument that there is no nexus between Lebelo’s SARS history and the NLSA salary issue, the respondent maintains that a nexus is not required for its reporting to be “legitimate”.

2.12.17. It points out that the article reports two independent facts: that Lebelo has a controversial SARS history and that his company was appointed by the NLSA and produced a report used in the reorganisation that produced the salary increases.

2.12.18. It maintains that the article does not allege that Lebelo’s SARS history “caused or is connected to the NLSA salary issue”. It says News24 reports both aspects because they are matters of public interest and because “the same individual is central to both”.

2.12.19. It submits that the article does not allege procurement fraud, concealed relationships, false declarations or political influence: “It reports that a company headed by a former SARS official with a documented history of conduct found problematic by a commission of inquiry was appointed by a public entity and produced a report that was used to justify a process the Department has since acknowledged requires remediation.”

2.12.20. It believes that Lebelo’s history and reputation are matters of legitimate public interest.

2.12.21. In response to the question of whether the reputational sting created by “an unqualified assertion” that Lebelo helped to destroy one public institution was necessary and adequately supported in an article which also presented him as the causal adviser behind alleged impropriety at another, the respondent states that this argument depends on characterisations of the article that are not supported by the text.

2.12.22. Firstly, it submits that the article does not present Lebelo as the causal adviser behind alleged impropriety. Instead, it says, the article reports that Afronex, headed by Lebelo, was appointed by the NLSA to review its organisational structure and produced a Paterson-Equate grading report. The Board then approved the Paterson system and salary adjustments followed.

2.12.23. It states that the article did not report that Lebelo caused, approved or was aware of the salary increases. “If the NLSA used Afronex’s report to justify or retrospectively legitimise increases already implemented,” it maintains, “that was the NLSA’s decision.”

2.12.24. Secondly, the respondent argues that the SARS characterisation is not an unqualified assertion and once again contends that the article contextualises the characterisation by referring to the Nugent Commission’s findings.

2.12.25. Thirdly, it says, the “reputational sting” argument conflates two independently justified elements of a public interest story. It states that Lebelo’s history at SARS is a matter of legitimate public interest, based on the Nugent Commission’s findings.

2.12.26. And his company’s appointment by the NLSA, and the use of its report in the reorganisation that produced the salary adjustments, is a separate matter that is also of legitimate public interest.

2.12.27. It argues that the fact that both matters appear in the same article does not create a breach of Clause 3.3, but simply reflects that the same individual features centrally to both stories.

2.12.28. The respondent further maintains that the Press Code does not require that a matter of public interest be suppressed because reporting it alongside another matter of public interest may produce “an undesired cumulative impression” on the subject.

2.12.29. It says that the key issues are whether the information is true or substantially true and whether it is in the public interest. It maintains that the article meets both requirements.

2.12.30. News24 says the article is “accurate (documented evidence), contextualised (Commission findings, right-of-reply, competing attributions), fairly attributed (sources identified, Afronex’s own response included), and careful with dignity (no allegation of personal wrongdoing by … Lebelo)”.

2.12.31. It adds that the reporting on Afronex’s appointment, its report, the Board’s approval of the Paterson system and the subsequent salary adjustments is also based on documented evidence and are matters of legitimate public interest.

2.12.32. It disputes Lebelo’s contention that the article creates an impression that Afronex was responsible for the salary increases because his history with SARS and the sequence of events reinforce this perception.

2.12.33. It points out that the article includes his comment that Afronex was “neither appointed nor authorised to determine, recommend, approve or implement individual salaries”. In addition, it says, News24 did not place any blame on Afronex for its report being used in NLSA Board minutes.

2.13. Complaint five: The respondent submits that the article was entitled to raise questions about the benchmarking of the salaries, in particular about whether SOEs – especially large entities such as Eskom and Transnet – are appropriate comparators for a much smaller public entity like the NLSA. It argues that using large SOEs as a benchmark would inflate the salary benchmarking.

2.13.1. News24 unsuccessfully attempted to establish which SOEs were used as comparators. Emergence declined to disclose their identities, citing confidentiality, and the NLSA and the DSAC did not disclose them either.

2.13.2. In view of this, it says, the article was entitled to report that SOEs were used as comparators and states that the public was entitled to know whether the benchmarking methodology used to justify salary increases at a publicly funded institution was appropriate.

2.13.3. It emphasises that the article did not present Eskom and Transnet as confirmed comparators but used them as illustrative examples. It believes a reasonable reader would understand that the article was raising a question about the appropriateness of the methodology used.

2.13.4. It further suggests that the DSAC’s admission that the process requires remediation supports the legitimacy of these questions.

2.14. Complaint six: In response to the complaint that a report may contain individually accurate facts yet create a misleading overall impression through selection and emphasis, the respondent submits that this argument depends on the premise that “the qualifying facts (the chronology, the Emergence attribution, the right-of-reply) are buried or dispersed in the body and that the headline and opening create a different impression”.

2.14.1. However, it argues, the structure of the article does not support this claim. It states that the headline reports the sequence and that the opening paragraph introduced Lebelo and his SARS history – a matter it regards as being of legitimate public interest.

2.14.2. The body of the article then reports Afronex’s own description of its mandate, Maralack’s reference to Emergence, the DSAC’s distinction between Afronex’s role in the broader organisational reengineering process and that of a separate service provider involved in the benchmarking, and what News24 refers to as unresolved questions about chronology and comparators.

2.14.3. It contends that qualifying facts are not dispersed or concealed but are part of the structure of the article. It says the complaint assumes that “any qualifying information placed below the headline/opening is by definition inadequate”.

2.14.4. However, it argues, the Press Code does not require every qualification to be incorporated in the headline. It requires that, read as a whole, the article must be fair, balanced and not misleading.

2.14.5. It submits that, read as a whole, the article reports “the documented sequence, raises legitimate questions and includes the right-of-reply and competing attributions”. According to News24, a reasonable reader would therefore understand the full picture.

2.14.6. With regard to the complaint that News24’s prior knowledge of corrective facts is relevant to whether “the resulting distortion” under Clause 1.2 was negligent or intentional, the respondent denies that there was any distortion.

2.14.7. It argues that the qualifying facts that the complaint identifies were not corrective, but were part of the article. It adds that News24’s pre-publication engagement with Afronex, its efforts to obtain information from the NLSA and the DSAC, its inclusion of competing attributions and right of reply demonstrate its efforts to verify information and report fairly.

2.14.8. It also rejects the complainants’ “cumulative argument” and states that the article does not present Afronex’s exercise as the mechanism through which the salary increases was engineered. Instead, it says, what the article does is report the chain of events “from Afronex’s report to the Board’s approval to the salary adjustments”. However, it emphasises that the article does not allege that Afronex engineered the outcome.

2.15. In conclusion, the respondent submits that the core reporting of the article is based on documented evidence, is in the public interest and complies with the Press Code. As such, it argues, the complaint should be dismissed.

Lebelo and Afronex

2.16. The complainants state that the main purpose of their rejoinder is to address the defences advanced by News24.

2.16.1. In addition, they request that Clause 1.9 of the Press Code – which requires the media to supplement a report once new information becomes available if it is based on limited information – to be considered.

2.16.2. The complainants submit that this clause arises in unusual circumstances: the article that is the subject of their complaint was published on 11 August 2026 and they lodged their complaint on 14 August 2026.

2.16.3. However, they state, News24’s reply relies on information in a response from the DSAC dated 24 August 2026 – after the article was published and after they lodged their complaint.

2.16.4. Based on that information, they say, News24 contends among other things that the NLSA process requires remediation, that statutory steps concerning executive remuneration may not have been followed and that Maralack’s earlier account is unreliable.

2.16.5. They request that a breach of Clause 1.9 be admitted for consideration because it arose directly from the respondent’s own defence and ask that News24 be given an opportunity to respond should the Press Ombud deem it necessary.

2.17. The complainants do not deny that Afronex’s broader assignment included
organisational design, job grading and remuneration-related advisory work. However, they say, this does not establish without further evidence that Afronex determined the individual salary amounts complained of or caused “a CEO remuneration position” which already existed before it entered the process.

2.17.1. They say their advisory work does not mean either that Afronex knew that the increases had already occurred when it was appointed or that it possessed the authority to approve or implement these increases.

2.17.2. They submit that News24 itself accepts part of this distinction when it states that Afronex “may not have set individual salary amounts” (point 2.10.7) and acknowledges that the decisions about remuneration required action by NLSA and the appropriate authorities.

2.17.3. They argue that the issue at stake is whether the particular “temporal and consequential relationship” conveyed by News24’s original headline and opening was justified by the information that was available at the time.

2.18. The complainants again take issue with the chronology of the adjusted remuneration and its later formalisation.

2.18.1. They say News24’s response to the complaint expressly states that parliamentary information in May 2025 reflected the CEO’s annual salary at about R2.5 million (point 2.10.1). They note that Afronex was only appointed on 11 July 2025 and that its report was produced in November 2025.

2.18.2. They state that the article reports that it appears that the CEO received his increase before the restructuring process and that documents suggest that it may already have been increased months before the Board approved the restructuring. They describe this acknowledgement as significant because it confirms that the retrospective timing problem was identified by News24’s own investigation.

2.18.3. Secondly, they say, this “sharpens” the complaint about the headline and opening. They say that the body of the article contains a more qualified and complicated chronology than the simple relationship expressed in the headline “after ex-SARS man’s advice” and in the sentence “[T]hese increases were implemented following [the Afronex] report …”.

2.18.4. While the complainants accept News24’s argument that retrospective justification was a legitimate subject of investigation, they submit that the proposition that “a remuneration position already reflected before Afronex’s appointment may later have been incorporated into, regularised, ratified or retrospectively justified through a process in which Afronex’s subsequent work featured” does not establish that the salary increases occurred after Afronex’s advice.

2.18.5. They ask what adjustment was made to the CEO’s remuneration after Afronex’s report in November 2025 that is “distinct” from the formalisation or regularisation of his remuneration that was already reflected in May 2025. They say News24 does not clearly identify a post-November increase in Links’ remuneration.

2.18.6. They maintain that, if News24’s case is that “the critical event” was retrospective approval of Links’ increase, that proposition was reportable. However, they argue, the headline and opening should have fairly reflected this more qualified proposition.

2.19. The complainants submit that the amended headline does not remove their complaint about Clause 10.1. They say any amendment is relevant only as a remedy or mitigation but does not erase the publication of the original headline.

2.19.1. They further state that they do not suggest that the word “after” invariably means legal causation. But, they say, the question is what a reasonable reader would understand from the headline as a whole.

2.19.2. They add that the words “Fat salary increases” are placed directly after advice from an “ex-SARS man” in the original headline and that the opening immediately states that the increases were “implemented following” the Afronex report. In that context, they maintain, the words communicate that Afronex’s advice preceded the salary adjustments.

2.19.3. They further argue that, although News24 submits in its response that the word “after” communicates sequence only, its response that Afronex’s report “directly underpinned” the salary adjustments (point 2.10.7) and that the Board acted on Afronex’s report advance “a material consequential relationship, not merely … that one date came after another”.

2.19.4. They maintain that News24 cannot fully answer the complaint about the original headline simply by reducing “after” to an innocent chronological connection. Furthermore, they argue, the qualifications in the body of the article do not necessarily cure the headline.

2.19.5. The complainants again return to Clause 1.9. They ask whether the article complied with this clause when it was published on 11 August 2026 and what obligation arose when materially relevant information subsequently became available.

2.19.6. They add that later evidence cannot retrospectively determine the reasonableness of an earlier formulation. They refer to Talane and Associates Attorneys vs News24 in support and say that Acting Press Ombud Johan Retief expressly disregarded events which occurred after publication and which were not reflected in the article under adjudication.

2.19.7. They contend that the DSAC’s response of 24 August 2026 may be relevant to subsequent reporting but cannot retrospectively establish what News24 presented as a categorical proposition on 11 August 2026.

2.19.8. In addition, they say, the DSAC information does not in itself establish that Afronex knew about the earlier CEO remuneration position when it was appointed, determined the CEO’s remuneration or caused the earlier remuneration adjustment, or that Maralack “necessarily misidentified” which service provider performed particular technical work.

2.19.9. They argue that, if the DSAC information carries that degree of significance in News24’s defence, it raises the question of whether it was also material enough to require supplementing the original article in terms of Clause 1.9.

2.19.10. The complainants request News24 to state whether it supplemented the article after 24 August 2026, the date on which it was supplemented, the precise information inserted, whether the supplementation was indicated prominently and whether corresponding changes were made to other News24-controlled versions of the article.

2.19.11. They suggest that News24 be given an opportunity to respond to this aspect and request the Ombud to assess whether Clause 1.9 was breached if the article was not supplemented.

2.20. The complainants repeat their objection to the formulation that Lebelo “played a key role in [SARS’s] destruction during the state capture era”. They say the question is whether the reasonable reader would understand this as an established finding of the Nugent Commission, an attributed opinion, News24’s interpretation or comment based on established findings or an unqualified factual assertion.

2.20.1. While News24 was entitled to interpret or comment on the significance of the Nugent Commission’s findings, they say, the question is whether it was adequately distinguished as such in line with Clause 1.3 of the Press Code. They add that Clause 3.3 remains relevant, “but it need not bear the primary analytical burden”.

2.21. The complainants then go on to raise a number of other issues, which they describe as subsidiary matters.

2.21.1. They state that the DSAC statement does not determine the exact division of technical work between Emergence, UAN, Afronex and NLSA. They say this is relevant when assessing the degree to which the headline could “fairly centre the remuneration outcome upon one adviser”.

2.21.2. They also question whether the comparator methodology could inflate the result in view of the fact that the actual comparator entities were not identified.

2.21.3 With regard to News24’s response that “nowhere in the article is it stated that the CFO’s increase followed Afronex’s advice” (point 2.10.16), they question the use of the plural noun in the original headline.

2.21.4. They argue that, if News24 maintains that the article did not establish that Tlali’s increase followed Afronex’s advice, this reinforces their concern about the original headline. They say evidence that an institutional grading framework applied to executive positions does not in itself establish the date on which Tlali’s salary increase occurred.

2.21.5. They submit that their complaint identifies a concrete chronology: the CEO remuneration level complained of was reflected in May 2025, Afronex was appointed in July 2025 and its report followed in November 2025. They say News24 itself describes the later institutional process as apparently retrospective.

2.21.6. The complainants again refer to confidential NLSA material (see points 2.9 and 2.9.1). They add that they do not authenticate every document or version in News24’s possession or confirm that every copy is complete or final.

2.22. In conclusion, the complainants identify the following issues for determination and relief:
• Chronology: how News24 could fairly characterise the salary increase through the categorical “after/following” formulation without distinguishing the earlier remuneration position from its retrospective justification.
• Headline and opening: what the reasonable reader would understand from “after ex-SARS man’s advice”, read together with “These increases were implemented following [the Afronex] report”.
• Subsequent information: whether there is a question concerning supplementing the article of 11 August 2026 if News24 regards the DSAC response on 24 August 2026 as materially strengthening its investigation.
• SARS statement: whether News24’s interpretation of the Nugent Commission’s findings was sufficiently distinguished from established fact.

2.22.1. The complainants reiterate the relief sought in the original complaint (point 2.8), subject to recognition that the original headline has already been changed. They request the Ombud to determine whether the original headline breached the Press Code notwithstanding that amendment and to take the amendment into account when determining the remedy.

3. Discussion

3.1. Complaints one and two: These complaints deal with the headline and the opening of the article, more specifically the second sentence, in relation to Clauses 10.1, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.7 of the Press Code. As explained in footnote 2, these complaints are based on similar arguments: however, one aspect of the complaint relates to the headline and the other to the opening of the article.

3.1.1. The original headline has since been updated (see footnote 1 and point 2.10), but the updated version retains the words “after ex-SARS man’s advice” and still suggests that the NLSA CEO’s salary was adjusted followed Lebelo’s advice. I will confine my analysis to this part of the headline since remedial action has already been taken regarding the rest of the headline. It would be unreasonable to issue a finding on aspects which have already been addressed such as the inclusion of the CFO’s salary in the original headline (point 2.21.3).

3.1.2. The complainants dispute the claim that the CEO’s salary increase occurred after advice from Lebelo. There is certainly merit in their argument. News24’s own reported chronology of events does not support its claim that Links’ salary increase followed Lebelo’s advice.

3.1.3. As News24 reports in the article: “A May 2025 Parliamentary question by the DA’s Thamsanqa Mabhena shows that the CEO’s salary was already R2.5 million … This is the same number which News24’s source … said the CEO’s salary had been increased to.”

3.1.4. Secondly, the article quotes Lebelo’s statement that Afronex was appointed by the NLSA in July 2025.

3.1.5. This sequence of events makes it clear that the salary of the NLSA’s CEO was already increased two months before Afronex was appointed by the NLSA.

3.1.6. Besides the headline, this chronology contradicts the claim in the second sentence that the increase in Links’ salary was implemented “following a salary-grading report by a controversial former executive at the SA Revenue Service (SARS) …”, namely Lebelo.

3.1.7. Nor is News24’s case assisted by its suggestion in the article and in its response to the complaint that a report produced by Afronex in November 2025 may have been used retrospectively to formalise the salary increases of NLSA executives (see points 1.4.4 and 2.10.12). The fact remains that the CEO’s salary was already increased by May 2025 – before Afronex was appointed in July 2025 and before it completed its report in November 2025.

3.1.8. The article itself reports: “While the NLSA said the increases were implemented as part of an organisational restructuring, it seems that CEO Ralph Links received his increase before that process was finalised.”

3.1.9. The sequence of events reported by News24 therefore does not support the chronology suggested by the word “after” in the headline regarding the review of the CEO’s salary. As a result, the headline is misleading and in breach of Clause 10.1 of the Press Code.

3.1.10. For the same reason, the word “following” in the second sentence of the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1. and 1.2 of the Press Code. It is inaccurate and misrepresents the facts.

3.1.11. Although the complaint also refers to a breach of Clause 1.7 of the Press Code, the complainants note that this is only advanced “subsidiarily”.

3.1.12. In any event, News24 contacted McKenzie’s office, Afronex and Emergence in an attempt to verify its information. It also consulted the NLSA Board minutes of February 2026, Maralack’s report of June 2026 and parliamentary remuneration records.

3.1.13. As a result, there are no grounds to claim a breach of this clause.

3.2. Complaint three: The complainants again refer to their complaint about the headline and opening of the article with regard to the NLSA CEO’s salary increase. This aspect has already been dealt with adequately in relation to the first two complaints.

3.2.1. The complaint goes on to deal more generally with the coverage of Afronex’s role in the salary increases at the NLSA. In particular, the complainants maintain that the article does not adequately provide the “material context” of its role (point 2.3.6).

3.2.2. Firstly, they say, the article accepts the explanation by Emergence that it did not approve the NLSA salary increases since that was the prerogative of the NLSA Board. On the other hand, they say, the article treats Afronex’s explanation differently even though it is materially similar (point 2.3.2).

3.2.3. However, News24 gives a persuasive response to this aspect of the complaint. It says that Afronex’s report of November 2025 suggests that its work went beyond simply drawing up a salary grading report: it also specifically recommended that the NLSA use its grading model as the institutional baseline for remuneration in future (see points 2.10.1 and 2.10.4).

3.2.4. For this reason, there were reasonable grounds for News24 to report in its article that “it was Lebelo’s Afronex report that formed the basis for the board’s initial approval to proceed with an implementation plan, according to the November 2025 board minutes”.

3.2.5. In fact, says News24, the NLSA Board minutes of 12 November 2025 explicitly state that organisational restructuring was approved for implementation based on the job grading and salary benchmarking reports prepared by Afronex (point 2.10.2).

3.2.6. Even so, News24 did not disregard Afronex’s explanation of its role at the NLSA. The article quotes Lebelo’s comment that Afronex was appointed to “review and develop a new organisation structure” and “not … to produce a formal grading or salary benchmarking framework”.

3.2.7. In view of the above considerations, this aspect of the article is balanced and not in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.2.8. Secondly, the complainants maintain that an allegation that their November 2025 report was used to justify, regularise or ratify the NLSA salary increases requires a “factual foundation”.

3.2.9. In its response to the complaint, News24 points out that Afronex produced its Paterson-Equate grading report in November 2025, the NLSA Board approved the Paterson system in February 2026 and the salary adjustments were formalised in March 2026 (point 2.11.1). In light of this sequence of events, the article states that “the board seemingly approved the [Paterson] system retrospectively”.

3.2.10. On the basis of the information at its disposal, News24 was therefore entitled to raise this possibility. As it submits in its reply to the complainants: “The complaint’s point assumes the article claims causation, but the article … raises the question of retrospective use.”

3.2.11. There was no attempt to attribute “causation” for such a decision to either Lebelo or Afronex. The article reports unambiguously: “The increases were approved by the board under chairperson Bernardo Maralack …”

3.2.12. In view of the above, the article is not in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code in this regard.

3.3. Complaint four: The complainants object to the reference in the article that Lebelo “played a key role in the institution’s destruction during the state capture era” and say the article does not attribute this phrase to an identified source or clearly present it as News24’s comment or interpretation as required by Clause 1.3 of the Press Code (point 2.4.1).

3.3.1. However, this clause also states that the media may present “what may reasonably be true as fact”. The question then arises whether there are any grounds for the particular reference in the article to Lebelo’s previous role at SARS.

3.3.2. As the article indicates, the respondent relies on the findings of the Nugent Commission to substantiate the use of the words in dispute: “Lebelo was suspended from SARS in 2019 … in response to the Commission of Inquiry into Tax Administration and Governance at SARS, also known as the Nugent Commission’s report.”

3.3.3. There is indeed sufficient merit in News24’s reliance on the Nugent Commission’s findings to justify the reference in question. While the Commission does not employ the precise terms that the article uses, it states in its “Primary Conclusions” that “there has been a massive failure of integrity and governance at SARS” (Page 3).

3.3.4. The Commission further declares: “There are many elements to good governance. Principally, in any organisation, it is the oversight role of senior management structures, that are able to put a brake on abuse of authority, but senior management was driven out or marginalised at SARS, and we have seen no evidence that senior management appointed by Mr Moyane was anything but compliant.” (Page 4)

3.3.5. And although the Commission does not mention Lebelo by name, it is certainly reasonable to infer that he is included in this statement in light of the fact that he was a member of SARS’ senior management in his capacity as Group Executive for Employee Relations.

3.3.6. He was placed on precautionary suspension by SARS in July 2019 in direct response to the Commission’s report – an indication that he was among those regarded as having played a role at the revenue service that was of serious concern. Based on these considerations, the reference is not in breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code.

3.3.7. The second leg of the complainants’ argument about the reference to Lebelo’s time at SARS is whether it was necessary and adequately supported in an article which presented him as the adviser behind alleged impropriety at another institution (point 2.4.3).

3.3.8. News24 rightly points out that this mischaracterises the article. Nowhere does it suggest any connection between Lebelo’s conduct at SARS during a contentious period in its recent past and his role at the NLSA.

3.3.9. The article does not attribute any blame to Lebelo for the salary adjustments at the NLSA. Instead, it clearly states that the salary increases were approved by the NLSA Board.

3.3.10. There is sufficient merit in News24’s argument that the point of its reference to Lebelo’s role in SARS and his role in the NLSA was essentially to note his involvement in both public entities. In fact, in the circumstances it would probably have been a glaring omission not to refer to Lebelo’s time at the revenue service.

3.3.11. In any case, the primary considerations of Clause 3.3 regarding dignity and reputation are whether the references to Lebelo’s roles in SARS and the NLSA are substantially true and whether these are in the public interest. The article satisfies these requirements on both counts.

3.4. Complaint five: The complainants object to what they regard as the suggestion that the benchmarking process may have been designed to inflate salaries and submit that this is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code because it misrepresents the facts (point 2.5).

3.4.1. In particular, they complain that the salaries of the SOEs Eskom and Transnet were used as a basis for comparison with those of the NLSA even though the article acknowledges that it is unclear which entities were used as a benchmark.

3.4.2. What is clear however, according to the article, is that Maralack’s report to the DSAC states that it was found that NLSA salaries “were below the market compared to state-owned/affiliated entities” (point 1.4.3).

3.4.3. Furthermore, the article clearly reports that “it is not clear which entities were used in this process” and discloses that News24’s attempts to establish their identities with the DSAC, the NLSA, Afronex and Emergence were unsuccessful. Eskom and Transnet were merely used in the article for illustrative purposes.

3.4.4. Nevertheless, based on Maralack’s report, News24 was perfectly justified in questioning the use of SOEs as a benchmark on the grounds that they “typically pay substantially more than entities under government departments”.

3.4.5. For this reason, News24 states in the article that benchmarking NLSA salaries against SOEs such as Eskom and Transnet would create a disparity – hence the reference to an “Inflated comparison”.

3.4.6. However, there is no intention in the article to misrepresent the benchmarking process. News24 used the information at its disposal to make a general point that using SOEs to benchmark NLSA salaries was inappropriate. As such, there is no breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.4.7. The complainants further submit that the original headline, Lebelo’s SARS history and “the disputed causal sequence” together reinforce the impression that the increase in salaries was engineered through Afronex’s organisational review (point 2.5.3).

3.4.8. However, News24 rejects this “cumulative argument” and with good reason. The complainants themselves acknowledge in their complaint that “the materially corrective or qualifying facts, the May remuneration chronology, the competing Emergence attribution and the separate-provider distinction, appear within the more detailed body of the article” (point 2.6.3).

3.4.9. And, as stated with regard to Complaint three, nowhere does the article attribute causation for the salary increases to Lebelo or Afronex (see point 3.2.11). Accordingly, there is no breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.5. Complaint six: As noted previously, this complaint is related to the previous one and argues that the “cumulative narrative” of the article on the NLSA’s salary increases must be assessed as a whole.

3.5.1. In support of their argument, the complainants single out the original headline, the description of Lebelo and Afronex as the advisers preceding the increases and the suggestion that the benchmarks may have been designed to inflate salaries (point 2.6.2). Each of these aspects have already been dealt with in relation to other complaints.

3.5.2. The complainants further claim that, as a whole, the article creates a misleading overall impression through sequencing and emphasis (point 2.6.1). They say a reader “should not have to reconstruct a materially different chronology from qualifying facts dispersed later in the article”.

3.5.3. In other words, their complaint is not that these facts were omitted or distorted. The complaint is about the placement of these facts in the overall structure or chronology of the article.

3.5.4. However, as pointed out in the previous complaint, the complainants themselves acknowledge that “the materially corrective or qualifying facts, the May remuneration chronology, the competing Emergence attribution and the separate-provider distinction, appear within the more detailed body of the article” (point 2.6.3).

3.5.5. Furthermore, it is important to note that Clause 1.2 does not prescribe how an article should be structured. As News24 correctly points out in its response to the complaint, the “decision of placement is an editorial one”.

3.5.6. The only requirement of this clause is that there should not be any distortion, misrepresentation or material omissions. On the basis of these considerations, there is no breach of this clause.

3.6. Complaint seven: In their rejoinder to News24’s reply, the complainants ask that it be considered whether there was a breach of Clause 1.9 of the Press Code (point 2.16.1). They ask whether the article of 11 August 2026 was updated after News24 received a statement from the DSAC on 24 August 2026.

3.6.1. This request is based on a misinterpretation of Clause 1.9, which requires a report to be updated if it is based on “limited information”.

3.6.2. However, the fact that additional information became available after an article was published does not necessarily mean that the original article was based on limited information. There was sufficient information available to justify publication of the article in question on 11 August 2026.

3.6.3. And, if anything, it was in the interests of News24 to publish the additional information. In other words, it is unclear how the complainants were prejudiced if the original article was not augmented.

3.6.4. Based on the above, there is no merit in considering whether or not the article is in breach of Clause 1.9.

3.6.5. In any event, as the complainants are aware, events which occurred after publication and were therefore not reflected in the article under adjudication can simply be disregarded, as the Acting Press Ombud did in Talane and Associates Attorneys vs News24 (point 2.19.6). I have elected to do so as well in this instance.

4. Findings

Complaint one: The complaint that the headline is in breach of Clause 10.1 is upheld for the reasons set out in points 3.1.2 to 3.1.9 of my Discussion.

Complaint two: The complaint that the second sentence in the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 is upheld for the reasons outlined in points 3.1.2 to 3.1.10 of my Discussion.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.7 is dismissed for the reasons identified in point 3.1.12 of my Discussion.

Complaint three: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.2.1 to 3.2.12 of my Discussion.

Complaint four: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.3.1 to 3.3.6 of my Discussion.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 3.3 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.3.7 to 3.3.11 of my Discussion.

Complaint five: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.4.2 to 3.4.9 of my Discussion.

Complaint six: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.5.3 to 3.5.6 of my Discussion.

Complaint seven: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.9 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.6.1 to 3.6.5 of my Discussion.

Firstly, News24 is required to publish an apology to Mr Lebelo for breaching Clause 10.1 by creating a misleading impression in the headline about his role in the review of the NLSA CEO’s salary and for breaching Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 in the second sentence of the article by inaccurately reporting and misrepresenting the sequence of events that led to the increase in the CEO’s salary.

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

Thirdly, the respondent should update the headline and article and publish a note under the headline: “NOTE: The headline and article have been updated. See Editor’s Note below, including an apology to Mr Lebelo.” 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 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 on News24’s landing page for 24 hours as well as on all its platforms where the article was published;
• be published on the landing page with a link to the original article;
• refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
• end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”;
• be published with the logo of the Press Council; and
• be approved by me.

Appeals procedure
The Complaints Procedure stipulates that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at khanyim@presscouncilsa.org.za

Tyrone August
Deputy Press Ombudsman
7 October 2026