Appeal Hearing Decision: Moses Mthethwa vs Oudtshoorn Courant

BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA

In the matter between:

Mthethwa Moses Ge                                                                       Appellant

and

Oudtshoorn Courant                                                                    Respondent

Matter No: 000473/01/2026

                                            APPEAL DECISION

1. Mr Moses Ge Mthethwa (appellant) noted an appeal against the Ruling of the Deputy Press Ombud dated 31 March 2026, which was on a complaint he had lodged against Oudtshoorn Courant (respondent) following certain articles published by the respondent about back in 2024. He complained that on 13 June 2024 the respondent published an article that he had been placed on precautionary suspension pending a Provincial Forensic Services (PFS) investigation, and that the article created a wrong impression that he was personally under investigation, whereas the investigation was into the affairs of the museum he was working for as the manager. The complaint was lodged in June 2024. On 2 August 2024 the respondent published a follow-up article entitled “Museum-bestuurder se skorsing gelig”. He says on 9 August 2024 the then Public Advocate (PA) informed the parties that in light of the follow-up article, the matter could be regarded as closed. The applicant accepted that that would be the case. Importantly, the article the applicant complained about was also accessible online.
2. He says on 8 January 2026 his attention was drawn by someone to the fact that that the harmful publication was still available online and on social media platforms. On 21 January 2026 he took steps, namely, to file what he said was a new complaint. This was about 18 months after the publication of the article complained about. He referred to his complaint as a “new” complaint. The Public Advocate refused to accept his complaint as being out of time, and, for the same reason, the Deputy Ombud refused to entertain it on the merits. The appellant then filed a notice of appeal. It must be noted that as to whether or not it was a new complaint, is not determined by the language the appellant, a non-lawyer, uses or what his perception is; it is determined according to the facts.
3. It became apparent from the appellant’s application for leave to appeal that it might well be that the complaint was not new, but simply a pursuit of the 2024 complaint that was lodged in time and which he erroneously thought, on the basis of the letter by the Public Advocate, that the harmful article would be removed from the website and social media platforms. On that basis, he was given leave to appeal.
4. In his heads of argument before us, the appellant says the following, amongst others: “At the time (in 2024) I reasonably understood the Public Advocate’s communication to mean that the matter had been brought to a satisfactory conclusion….. I was unaware that the earlier articles would remain permanently online, unamended and without any corrective context…… I was equally unaware that those articles would continue to be indexed by internet search engines and social media platforms whenever my name was searched.” He says once he realized that in January 2026 (through a friend), he promptly complained to the Press Council. Before the Appeals Panel, it became common cause that indeed the harmful articles were neither removed from the website by the respondent or “de-indexed”.
5. We agree with the appellant that he did not, in January 2026, complain about anything new. As he puts it, he “did not complain about different articles, different facts or different conduct.” It was exactly the same complaint that was lodged in time in 2024. The Deputy Ombud was therefore wrong to characterize the complaint as “new” and therefore being out of time.
6. In the circumstances, the following Order is made:

6.1. The appeal succeeds.

6.2. The complaint is not new, and was lodged in time in 2024.

6.3. The Ruling by the Deputy Ombud dated 31 Marh 2026 is hereby set aside.

6.4. The complaint is referred back to the Ombud for adjudication on the merits.

Dated this …… day of October 2026

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair of the Appeals Panel

Mr M Sanglay, Media Representative

Mr J Matisonn, Public Representative