Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Adv. Nazreen Ismail Pitamber v Sunday Times and TimesLIVE

, ,

Ruling: Acting Deputy Press Ombud

Complaint number: PCSA 000669

Authors: Sabelo Skiti (both articles) and Sipho Masondo (co-authoring the second one)

Headlines:

Links to stories:

DISCLAIMER

  1. I am careful not to overstep my mandate and to intrude in matters before a court. For example, I am not going to decide on matters such as whether the alleged verbal agreement between Pitamber and Majozi was real, which party is correct in this matter, what Pitamber’s status as an advocate is, the veracity of the transcript, and whether she resigned or was dismissed.
  2. I shall be careful to stay in my lane and only adjudicate matters pertaining to possible breaches of the Press Code; if I am going to err in this regard, it will be on the side of caution.
  3. I need to point out that I have been inundated with documents that are not strictly relevant to the complaint. This complicates matters considerably and is unnecessarily time-consuming.

PARTICULARS

  1. This finding is based on correspondence from Shaheed Dollie, a director at Shaheed Dollie Incorporated, on behalf of Nazreen Pitamber (henceforth, “Dollie” and “Pitamber”), and on that of Robin Wheatley, on behalf of Arena Holdings and the publications (henceforth, “Arena” and “Wheatley”).

THE ARTICLES

The first story

  1. The report is about an application by Temi Construction owner Silindokuhle Majozi to the Johannesburg High Court to overturn a R25m settlement paid to former CEO Nazreen Pitamber. He is quoted as saying that he agreed to the settlement under duress, extortion and threats to his family.
  2. Majozi reportedly alleged that a file Pitamber had withheld until she received full payment contained a surveillance photograph of his wife and children marked “RIP”, rather than corporate information. He reported the matter to the police.
  3. Skiti reports Majozi’s founding affidavit and supporting documents in Temi Construction as well as his application to set aside the R25 million settlement.

The second story

  1. This article updates readers on the proceedings by reporting Pitamber’s answering affidavit quite extensively, as well as Majozi’s replying affidavit.
  2. The central issues are whether the R25m payment resulted from extortion or a legitimate settlement, whether the agreement was validly authorised, and which version of the disputed electronic evidence was credible.
  3. These matters remained contested before the High Court.

THE COMPLAINTS

The first article

Failing to respond

  1. Pitamber complains that the article misleadingly describes her as having failed to respond to enquiries, despite acknowledging that her attorney, Dollie, had sent a substantive response two weeks prior to publication. In that response he denied the allegations made against her, invoked the sub judice position, and requested that publication be withheld.
  2. Therefore, she argues that:

a. calling this a “non-response” is factually inaccurate – she says she did respond through her attorney, but that she declined to comment for legal reasons;

b. the reportage wrongly portrays her as silent, evasive and uncooperative; and

c. the article contradicts itself on this issue.

13. Dollie concludes, “The Press Code obligation to present news in context does not fall away because a party has declined to comment on the merits of ongoing litigation. Publicly available facts that materially qualify the reported narrative must be reported, regardless of whether the affected party provides them.”

Material omissions

  1. Pitamber identifies two material facts that are omitted, both of which contradict the central claim in the article, namely that the settlement was obtained through duress or extortion:

a. Clause 7.7 of the settlement agreement, which states that it was concluded freely and voluntarily, without undue influence or duress. She submits, “To quote one clause of a document while omitting a directly contradictory clause in the same document constitutes a contextual omission…”; and

b. CIPC records show that Majozi remained a co-shareholder and director with her and her husband in two companies until 31 March 2026, about three years after the alleged extortion. “Voluntary continued commercial partnership with a party alleged to have committed criminal extortion is a material fact that qualifies the duress narrative and was publicly available…” she adds.

15. Pitamber says that Skiti consulted the attorney, Zaheer Moosa, while preparing the article. Moosa served as the independent mediator who facilitated the settlement agreement between the parties, and he provided the reporter with context regarding the settlement. She says he is the single most important independent witness to the events that the article reports on. However, she says his response to the journalist is not reflected in the article.

16. She submits that this is “a serious omission.” Her argument is that, if Moosa’s account contradicted or qualified Majozi’s narrative in any material respect, the decision not to report it amounts to a deliberate suppression of balance.

17. In conclusion, she says: “The fact that Mr Skiti did not refer to his consultation with Attorney Moosa, nor to the indemnification agreement that would have emerged from it, is not an oversight. It reflects a deliberate and calculated editorial choice to portray a picture inconsistent with the truth… Where a journalist has consulted an independent eyewitness, particularly one whose account qualifies or contradicts the primary source’s narrative, the deliberate omission of that account from the published article is a failure of the fairness obligation under section 1.2 (of the Press Code).”

Sworn statement

  1. The article states that Majozi made a sworn statement to the police. It reads, “He claims that upon opening it, he found no commercial data or corporate nondisclosure terms. ‘Instead, it held a surveillance photograph of my wife and children, with the capital letters ‘RIP’ scrawled heavily across their faces. The message was clear: sign, pay, and stay silent, or your family pays the ultimate price,’ he said in a sworn statement to police.”
  2. Pitamber says that:

a. on 11 May 2026, the journalist was informed that Majozi had laid criminal charges of extortion, intimidation and fraud against her, her husband and assistant, and that the investigating officers were due to obtain their warning statements on 25 May 2026;

b. on May 24, the article reported, as fact, that she had orchestrated a murderous threat against Majozi’s family, supposedly supported by a sworn police statement and a photograph marked “RIP”; and

c. the following day, the investigating officers were shown the article – and they denied that the alleged sworn statement or photograph existed in the docket, stating that Majozi had not made such a statement to police and that “the allegation as published in the Article does not reflect the contents of the police docket”.

Chronology

  1. Pitamber submits that the chronology of the events itself is a matter of serious concern. She says, inter alia, that she states in her statement of May 25 that:

a. the article associated her, through an alleged sworn police statement, with a threat she had never made and that the police docket did not contain; and

b. she had approximately 24 hours to absorb what was effectively a character assassination published to a national audience.

21. She contends, “The publication of a false and incendiary allegation on the eve of a pre-arranged warning statement meeting is not readily explicable as a coincidence. The timing is precise, the prejudice is maximal, and the effect, intended or otherwise, was to ensure that [she] entered the most consequential investigative interview of her life already publicly characterised as a murderer-by-proxy. This Office should have regard to this chronology in assessing both the gravity of the breach and the appropriate remedy.”

No independent verification

  1. Pitamber complains that the journalist did not independently verify the serious allegation that she was responsible for the “dirt” file and the picture with “RIP” written across it. She says, “This is among the most damaging allegations that can be published about any person. It is an allegation of murderous intimidation. It required, at minimum, independent verification from the police docket or from the investigating officers before it could responsibly be published.”
  2. She adds that this is particularly questionable because Majozi’s founding affidavit does not mention the photograph; instead, it states that he saw nothing constituting “dirt” in the alleged file. “This contradicted the supposed police statement relied upon by the article,” she submits.

Danie Pretorius’s opinion

  1. Pitamber says the article uses the prominent credentials of Pretorius (a director at Fluxmans Attorneys and former acting Labour Court judge) to authoritatively validate Majozi’s case, specifically highlighting his conclusion that the payment of R25 million was “extraordinary” – while Pretorius explicitly qualified his views by stating they were based on the facts “provided to him”.
  2. She complains that the article downplays this qualification, “without any engagement with [her] version”.
  3. She adds that, because Pretorius was answering a question based on a “materially different” and entirely one-sided factual foundation, presenting his view as independent, authoritative commentary fails to clearly distinguish between fact and comment.

Evidence of bias

  1. Pitamber complains that the journalist published extensive and emotive allegations from Majozi’s founding affidavit before her answering affidavit was due, despite having been aware that it would have been filed shortly.
  2. “This created a one-sided public record at the point of maximum informational asymmetry, with real potential to prejudice the fair administration of justice and to cause harm to persons whose future conduct in relation to both parties may be influenced by the published narrative,” she submits.
  3. Pitamber says that publication could have been delayed by one to two weeks to include her version “without any loss of public interest value”.
  4. She argues, “The deliberate decision to publish before [my] answering affidavit was filed, in the face of an explicit request to wait, reflects an editorial choice that is difficult to reconcile with fair and responsible journalism.”
  5. She adds that the publication’s subsequent decision to wait for Majozi’s replying affidavit before updating the article, while denying her the same opportunity, demonstrates unequal treatment. “This is clear evidence of bias.”

Inaction by the publications

  1. Pitamber says that, on 1 June 2026, her answering affidavit was filed in the Gauteng High Court and provided directly to Skiti. The affidavit sets out her full version of events and comprehensively refutes the central allegations in the article.
  2. Therefore, the publication had her complete version and could no longer attribute the one-sidedness of the article to her unavailability.
  3. Its failure to correct or update the article despite possessing information directly contradicting its narrative constitutes a continuing breach of its fairness obligations and compounds the original unfairness, she contends.

Harm done; relief sought

  1. Pitamber submits that the article continues to cause her severe and irreparable harm. She says the allegations published involving extortion, a “dirt file”, criminal threats against a family, and fraudulent professional conduct that are severely damaging to her character. They have been published to a national audience through one of South Africa’s most widely read newspapers and its online platform and have been indexed by search engines.
  2. She emphasises that she is an advocate and that her professional reputation is her livelihood.
  3. Pitamber concludes that the article paints her in a deeply criminalising light based solely on one party’s unverified and self-serving narrative, without her version of events. The way the article was formulated, particularly the emotive and accusatory language deployed against her before any court finding has been made, borders on crimen iniuria and constitutes serious defamation. “The harm to [my] professional standing, business relationships, and personal dignity is real, ongoing, and demonstrable.”
  4. She asks for:

a. a full and prominent front-page apology in the print edition of the Sunday Times, in terms approved by this office and by her, acknowledging that the article was published in breach of the Press Code and caused harm to her reputation;

b. the article to be removed from the TimesLIVE website, and all digital platforms of Arena Holdings, and the publication to formally request Google and other search engines to de-index the article; and

c. a right of reply to be published in the Sunday Times in a position of equivalent prominence.

The second article

  1. Dollie says Skiti afforded him on 15 July 2026 just one day to respond to complex forensic, telecommunications and legal questions.
  2. He responded in writing on July 17.
  3. He submits that the journalist omits to report crucial information contained in Pitamber’s answering affidavit. This includes:

a. Majozi’s withdrawal of his protection order applications and his tendering to pay the costs thereof, after having failed to deliver a replying affidavit. Pitamber also demands that this piece of information be published – and yet, the article makes no mention of the withdrawal;

b. Pitamber’s denial that the photograph marked “RIP” existed and that investigating officers confirmed that no such photograph appears in the police docket; and

c. the fact that Majozi himself had not submitted to the forensic scrutiny he demanded of others.

42. Dollie argues that these omissions plainly constitute material as well as intentional and grossly negligent departures from the facts.

43. Furthermore, Dollie says the article uses loaded, one-sided language, portraying Majozi as having “shredded” and “shot down” Pitamber’s arguments while dismissing her version as an unproven “theory”.

44. Pitamber says the cumulative effect is an article that appears balanced to an uninformed reader but is, considering the information available to the journalists, unfair. This is “aggravated by the fact that the second article expressly invites the reader to read it in the context of the first article, thereby republishing and compounding the harm complained of in the first complaint,” she concludes.

Relief sought

  1. Pitamber seeks a correction and apology, with equal prominence, clarifying that Majozi withdrew his protection order applications and tendered costs; that he failed to respond to the demand to preserve and produce his cell phone; that she denied the RIP photograph allegation, which investigating officers confirmed is unsupported by any photograph in the docket; and that GSM call records cannot reflect WhatsApp communications.

REPLY TO BOTH COMPLAINTS

Mistake acknowledged

  1. Arena acknowledges that one passage originally misquoted part of Majozi’s statement. That passage has been corrected online, and an Editor’s Note records the correction and expresses regret.
  2. “The correction identifies what was wrong, corrects the quotation on the platform where it appeared, and records regret. That is the form of remedial action contemplated by clauses 1.10 and 1.11 of the Press Code.”

Fair, accurate reporting, verification

  1. Wheatley argues that both articles constitute fair and accurate reporting on court proceedings under Clauses 3.3.3 and 3.3.5 of the Press Code.
  2. Relying on findings by this office in the matter of Norman Sebaku v City Press, Siyabonga Gama v Sunday Times and Tuwani Mulaudzi v The Sunday Independent, Wheatley contends that the media may report filed court documents without independently verifying every allegation or seeking further comment.
  3. He says the publications nevertheless sought comment and afforded Pitamber an extended opportunity to respond.
  4. “Fair in this context does not equate to a full recordal of the complainant’s response or desired text but a fair representation of what is contained in the affidavits reported on,” Wheatley concludes.

Accuracy, attribution

  1. Arena contends that the articles fairly and accurately summarise the court proceedings, including Majozi’s allegations of duress and extortion, the mediation meeting, the supporting affidavit and the settlement agreement.
  2. Wheatley says the publication was entitled to report the pleaded allegations without independently proving them or awaiting judgment, as determining their merits was the court’s role. He submits that the disputed facts cited by Pitamber do not establish material omissions, and that the articles were not required to reproduce every annexure, to anticipate an unfiled answering affidavit, or to adopt Pitamber’s interpretation of the evidence.
  3. He argues that the Press Code requires publications to reproduce the court proceedings fairly and accurately, not to conduct a parallel trial or wait for judgment.
  4. “The complaint’s reliance on selected facts does not demonstrate a material omission. The alleged voluntariness of the settlement, the later continuation of business dealings and the parties’ respective corporate positions form part of the contested merits,” he concludes.

Comment sought, denial published

  1. Arena argues that Pitamber was given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the first article: the initial enquiry was sent on 21 April 2026. On May 7 Skiti offered an extended deadline as well as further discussion. He also explained that the story concerned the existence of a newsworthy R25 million dispute.
  2. Wheatley says that Pitamber’s attorney declined to address the substantive questions, citing pending litigation, but that he (Dollie) did provide a general denial and requested that publication be postponed until the proceedings concluded.
  3. He submits that the first article accurately reports that position, including the denial of wrongdoing and the intention to file an answering affidavit. “No reasonable reader could understand the articles as concealing the attorney’s communication or the complainant’s denial and version in the affidavits,” he opines.
  4. Arena maintains that Clause 1.8 of the Press Code does not prohibit a publication to delay reporting until court papers are filed or allow a complainant to dictate publication. “It is therefore disingenuous for the complainant to suggest that they were not afforded a reasonable time to respond, particularly since the first enquiry was sent on 21 April and the first article published on 24 May 2026.”
  5. Regarding the second article, Wheatley says that Press Council rulings state that where the reporting is on court proceedings, it is not required to obtain comment. “However, prior to the publication of the second article, questions were sent to Shaheed Dollie Inc, acting on behalf of Adv Pitamber.”
  6. Their response was duly recorded, he concludes.

Expert’s opinion

  1. Arena argues that reporting Pretorius’s opinion is legitimate because it is attached to Majozi’s founding affidavit and it supports the court application. Pretorius also filed an affidavit explaining his experience. “Reporting it was reporting on the court proceeding.”
  2. Wheatley denies that the first article portrays Pretorius as a court-appointed or jointly instructed neutral expert. “It identified him, described the document as ‘a legal opinion appended to Majozi’s application’, and quoted his express qualification: ‘On the facts provided to me’. Readers were therefore given both the source and limitation of the opinion. The first article did not adopt the opinion as a judicial finding.”

Transcript ‘irrelevant’

  1. Arena submits that the transcript does not establish an ethical breach at the time of publication because it is undated and was not provided to the journalist before either article appeared. “Ethical compliance must be assessed by reference to the information reasonably available at publication, not material generated or disclosed afterwards.”
  2. Wheatley adds that the transcript is not entirely relevant to the accuracy of the articles. “It records a discussion in which an officer said that there were no photographs in the docket at that time. In any event, the transcript is utilised to prove a position that had been corrected prior to the submission of the second complaint.”

Other alleged omissions, Moosa

  1. Arena says the suggestion that the publication deliberately suppressed information from Moosa is unsupported. “The complaint does not attach a statement from Moosa identifying what he told the journalists, whether it was on the record or confidential, or how it contradicted the pleaded case in the affidavits filed by the parties. Its assertion that favourable information would necessarily have been published is speculation, not evidence of a material omission,” Wheatley submits.
  2. Besides, a newspaper is not required to publish every fact, submission or formulation proposed by a litigant or her attorney. Editorial selection is unavoidable. “The relevant question is whether the article’s overall account was materially accurate and fair.”
  3. Wheatley maintains that the article met this standard by identifying the contested application, attributing adverse allegations (including Pitamber’s denial and explanation for not responding), and accurately reporting the parties’ affidavits.

Dignity, public interest, relief sought

  1. Arena says it accepts that the allegations were serious. However, the subject matter was nevertheless plainly in the public interest – it was about a R25 million corporate payment, and an associated criminal complaint. The argument is that Clause 3.3 of the Press Code does not immunise a litigant from adverse court reporting; instead, it protects reputation while expressly recognising fair and accurate reports of court proceedings and impartial accounts of disputes.
  2. Wheatley submits that the relief sought is disproportionate. “The sole identified quotation error has been corrected and apologised for. The balance of the first article remains a fair, accurate and properly attributed report of filed affidavits in legal proceedings. There is no basis for (the) removal of a front-page apology, or a compelled right of reply. The same applies for (sic) the second article.”

Answering affidavit reported

  1. Arena argues that the second article demonstrates its commitment to fair and balanced court reporting by publishing Pitamber’s answering affidavit after it became available.
  2. Wheatley says its sub-headline expressly describes the parties as presenting “duelling narratives in court”, and the article states that Pitamber’s answering affidavit contained “an entirely different narrative… This subsequent reporting … is inconsistent with the complaint’s suggestion that the publication was determined to suppress her version or advance only Majozi’s case.”
  3. He concludes: “The complaint repeatedly addresses issues which the complainant deems relevant for the publication, in our view, to further her position. Absence of what she deems relevant, in these circumstances does not have the consequence of reporting on court proceedings (being) unfair and unbalanced.”

REJOINDER (regarding both complaints)

In general

  1. Dollie says his reply addresses Arena’s principal defence and the matters that call for direct answers, without repeating each ground for her complaints.
  2. He calls the publications’ defence “an exercise in misdirection”, because he says it relies on Press Council principles concerning verification of affidavit allegations and the duty to seek comment – issues that Pitamber does not dispute. He says that the complaints concern inaccuracy, partiality, material omissions and inadequate remedies – issues that Arena does not address.
  3. Dollie says that Pitamber does not complain that the publications failed to verify Majozi’s allegations and that they failed to seek her comment. “She complains that what they chose to publish, and the manner in which they chose to publish it, was inaccurate and partisan.”

Ombud’s findings ‘misapplied’

  1. Dollie says that Arena misapplies the matters of Sebaku, Gama and Mulaudzi that were before the Press Council, which address only verification of affidavit contents and the obligation to seek comment on court documents under Clause 1.8 of the Press Code. “Not one of them concerns accuracy, impartiality, balance or the adequacy of a remedy, which are the four things this complaint is about.”
  2. He concludes that Arena used those rulings to construct a defence that those rulings do not support. “Stripped of that manoeuvre, the response contains no answer to the complaint at all,” he opines.

Protection for court reporting; the RIP allegation

  1. Dollie submits that Arena cannot rely on Clauses 3.3.3 and 3.3.5 of the Press Code as blanket protection for court reporting or accounts of disputes, as the Code expressly makes that protection conditional on fairness, accuracy and impartiality. Any ruling by the Office must be consistent with those requirements. If the reporting fails to meet the applicable conditions, it falls outside the clauses’ protection. Arena cannot claim the privilege while disregarding the conditions that qualify it, he argues.
  2. He contends that the admission that Sunday Times misquoted Majozi does not go far enough. At paragraph 8 of its response, Arena lists the court documents from which the first article was said to be drawn. However, the RIP allegation, “the single most damaging and inflammatory passage in the entire coverage, appears nowhere in that list, because it was not drawn from any of those documents”.
  3. The first article attributes the allegation expressly to “a sworn statement to police”. However, a statement in a police docket is not an affidavit, annexure or other document filed in the High Court application. Arena’s entire defence, as well as every authority it cites, concerns the reporting of court documents. He says that privilege does not apply to the RIP allegation, because the allegation was never drawn from a court document.
  4. Dollie reiterates that Arena cannot defend publishing the RIP allegation under the principle of privileged court reporting because the very court document they relied on does not contain that allegation and, in fact, it contradicts it.
  5. “The most inflammatory allegation in the article thus contradicts the very court document the respondents rely upon, was attributed to a police statement outside any privilege, has been confirmed by the investigating officers not to exist in the docket, and has now been conceded to have been misquoted. No principle of court reporting can absolve its publication.”
  6. He adds:

a. The founding affidavit contradicts the article. Majozi’s affidavit states that he paged through the file and found nothing constituting “dirt” – it does not contain the RIP allegation;

b. The allegation has no privilege. The article attributes the allegation to a police statement, which falls outside the claimed protection for reporting court proceedings;

c. The allegation is demonstrably false. The investigating officers reportedly confirmed that the statement did not exist in the docket, and Arena has conceded that they misquoted it;

d. Arena’s reliance on the transcript’s timing is irrelevant. Its argument that the transcript was undated and obtained after publication does not establish that the allegation was true. The transcript’s date concerns when the evidence of falsity was recorded, not when the allegation became false; and

e. Court-reporting principles cannot excuse the publication. Arena cannot invoke the protection afforded to court reporting to justify an inflammatory allegation that was absent from, and contradicted by, the court document that was in its possession.

Omissions

  1. Dollie submits that Arena has unfairly selectively quoted the reference in Majozi’s affidavit regarding undue influence and stress, while omitting Clause 7.7 of the settlement agreement, which states that the agreement was concluded voluntarily and without undue influence or duress.
  2. He adds that public CIPC records show that Majozi remained a director and shareholder alongside Pitamber until March 2026 – which was years after the alleged extortion had been committed.

Pretorius

  1. Dollie contends that Arena has failed to address Pitamber’s complaint that Pretorius’s opinion was presented as an independent expert validation of Majozi’s case, despite being based solely on the latter’s instructions and version of events. He argues the fact that the article includes the qualification that the opinion relied on “the facts provided to me” does not adequately alert readers to its one-sided foundation. “An opinion premised solely on one party’s account, presented with prominence as independent expert validation, without the ordinary reader being alerted that its entire foundation is one-sided, is comment presented as fact in breach of clause 1.3 of the Press Code,” he concludes.

No response

  1. Dollie submits: “A response through legal counsel is a response. To announce a non-response while reporting the response, and to cast a reasoned legal position as censorship and evasion, leaves the ordinary reader with a false impression of an uncooperative and evasive litigant,” he argues.

Inadequate time to respond

  1. Dollie says Arena’s statement that it is “disingenuous” to complain of inadequate time to respond given that the first enquiry was sent on 21 April 2026, answers a complaint that has not been made.
  2. He contends that this part of Pitamber’s complaint concerns the second article, for which the 15 July 2026 enquiry allowed only one day to respond to complex forensic, telecommunications and legal questions before publication. He submits, “The respondents have answered a first-article timing complaint that does not exist while ignoring the second-article timing complaint that does.”

Partiality

  1. Dollie says Arena’s response reinforces rather than rebuts the allegation of partiality – although Pitamber’s answering affidavit was delivered to Skiti on 1 June 2026, Arena published it only after receiving Majozi’s replying affidavit on July 3 – more than a month later. “For the full month between those dates, the respondents held an answer they already possessed, and they published only once the reply was in hand to blunt it, so that our client’s version never once reached the public without Mr Majozi’s rebuttal fixed to it. Mr Majozi’s case was given a solo and unanswered airing; our client’s case was never afforded the same. That is not the neutral, stage-by-stage court reporting the respondents describe; it is a consistent editorial preference for one litigant over the other, and the respondents’ own chronology is the proof of it.”
  2. Furthermore, Arena’s claim to neutral reporting is contradicted by the impression created by the articles, inter alia because the:

a. first one presents extremely serious claims against Pitamber before she has answered, while omitting material context (the absence of the alleged extortion claim from the court document, the settlement’s recorded voluntariness, the parties’ continued business relationship for three years and the independent mediator’s account); and

b. second one includes both parties’ versions but omits Majozi’s withdrawal of his harassment proceedings and tender of costs.

93. Read together, he submits that the articles leave the reasonable reader persuaded of one party’s case rather than having been informed of a contested dispute.

94. Pitamber argues that the coverage’s one-sidedness is demonstrated by the cumulative effect of Arena’s editorial choices, because a neutral reporter does not:

a. lead with the single most damaging allegation against one party, sourced from outside a court file, before that party has answered;

b. quote a clause of a settlement agreement that assists one party while suppressing the clause in the same document that assists the respondent;

c. consult an independent mediator and then neglect to report his account;

d. present a one-party expert opinion as independent validation; and

e. report one party’s affidavit the day it is filed[1], yet hold the other party’s affidavit for a month until it can be published under cover of a rebuttal.

95. “Every one of these choices ran in the same direction. The consistency of that direction, across two articles and every material decision within them, is what distinguishes partiality from coincidence, and it is why the protection afforded to the fair and impartial reporter is not available to these respondents,” Dollie submits.

Inadequate remedy

  1. Dollie says the RIP allegation appeared in the print edition of the Sunday Times (“which is where the harm was done”) but its remedial action was an online Editor’s Note expressing “regret” for a misquote. This, he submits, lacked equivalent prominence and failed to reach print readers who were exposed to the damaging association.
  2. He adds: “An expression of regret to the world at large is, moreover, not an apology to our client. That the response, combative from first paragraph to last, contains no apology to our client anywhere is itself indicative of the attitude with which this matter has been approached, and it is why the correction and apology must be directed to our client, published on every platform as required by clause 1.10 of the Press Code, with prominence commensurate with the original.”

Harm to dignity, reputation

Relief sought

  1. Dollie argues that Arena wrongly treats Pitamber’s request for relief as disproportionate because it concerns only one error, ignoring the combined seriousness of the breaches: an uncorrected false allegation of a murderous threat, a misleading quotation contradicting a court document, omitted public records and an independent witness’s account, a one-sided opinion presented as independent fact, and bias across two articles.
  2. “Relief of the order sought is proportionate precisely because the breaches are grave and cumulative, not because any one of them stands alone,” he opines.
  3. Pitamber asks for:

a. the publication of a correction and an apology in the Sunday Times print edition, with appropriate prominence;

b. the removal of the articles from the TimesLIVE website and all Arena platforms; and

c. a right of reply of equivalent prominence.

ANALYSIS

RIP

  1. At the core of the complaint is the following claim in Majozi’s sworn statement to the police, as recorded by Skiti: “Instead, it (read: the so-called dirt file) held a surveillance photograph of my wife and children, with the capital letters ‘RIP’ scrawled heavily across their faces. The message was clear: sign, pay, and stay silent, or your family pays the ultimate price.”
  2. I could not find any evidence of such a statement – if Majozi did say that, it was not presented to me. On the contrary, I found quite the opposite in his founding affidavit, dated 1 April 2026, in which he states: “The dirt file only contains documents relating to the purchase and sale of units in the Michaelangelo and the Raphael developments. There is nothing untoward about any of these transactions and I invite Adv Nazreen to point out the ‘dirt’ that could damage me or Temi Construction… The documents are innocuous…”
  3. With that in mind, I asked the Public Advocate (PA) to enquire with Arena what the source of the RIP matter was. Where did Skiti’s information come from?
  4. The PA obliged on October 12 and 15 – but Arena’s silence on this matter was and continues to be deafening. I cannot help wondering why Sunday Times did not respond to this central question. If Majozi really said it, why not just inform me accordingly?
  5. Let me be crystal clear about this: If Majozi really made the RIP claims, Sunday Times was justified in publishing it – if he was wrong, it was not the newspaper’s fault.
  6. But there is more. I also do not have any evidence to refute Pitamber’s statement that investigating officers denied that the alleged sworn statement or photograph existed in the docket and that “the allegation as published in the Article does not reflect the contents of the police docket”.
  7. In these circumstances, I must be forgiven for suspecting that the reporter merely sucked it out of his thumb. I have no other reasonable explanation. If that is the case, I leave it up to the editor to take up the matter with the reporter.
  8. This, to my mind, is particularly serious – Pitamber is portrayed as contemplating or at least envisaging the murder of Majozi’s family. I am trying to put myself in her shoes – but even that is unthinkable to me.
  9. The question is not if Sunday Times breached the Press Code on this issue – it has admitted as much. The only remaining questions are how serious it is and if its correction and statement of regret are sufficient to counter the unnecessary harm this has caused Pitamber. I shall return to this matter at the end of my analysis.
  10. Ultimately, I can find no justification for the reportage on this issue.

Failing to respond

  1. Pitamber complains that the article misleadingly says that she has failed to respond to enquiries.
  2. For context, I quote the whole relevant passage: “Pitamber … did not respond to a media enquiry sent by the Sunday Times five weeks ago. Instead, her attorney, Shaheed Dollie, wrote to the newspaper two weeks ago demanding, under threat of legal action, that reporting on the matter be withheld until the court process is concluded. ‘Given the serious nature of the allegations, and also the fact that the allegations form the subject matter of various judicial proceedings, it would be improper for our clients to ventilate such disputes in public and by affording you an opportunity of interviewing them,’ Dollie said. Our clients deny that they have acted improperly, as alleged…” he added.
  3. This part of the complaint has no merit because:

a. it is true that Pitamber did not respond to enquiries in person; and

b. her attorney’s response is reported, which includes her denial of the allegations.

Selective quotation, contradicting a court document

  1. The complaint is that the journalist unfairly omitted to report Clause 7.7 of the settlement agreement, which states that the agreement was concluded freely and voluntarily, without undue influence or duress[2] – while quoting Majozi as saying, “The settlement agreement was not a product of commercial negotiation, but of absolute capitulation under severe duress, extortion and an engineered atmosphere of fear.”
  2. Notably, Arena does not respond to this part of the complaint.
  3. In the first article, Skiti refers twice to the settlement agreement – but he does not report what Clause 7.7 stipulates.
  4. Given that he reports Majozi’s statement that the agreement was made “under severe duress, extortion and an engineered atmosphere of fear”, he surely was duty-bound to report Clause 7.7 as well. Without a reference to that clause, the reportage became unfair and unbalanced.

Some other omissions

Moosa’s account

  1. Pitamber complains that Moosa is an independent mediator and is the single most important independent witness to the events that the article reports on – and yet, even though Skiti did consult him, the journalist does not report his comments.
  2. Arena is correct in this regard – it is mere speculation what Moosa said to Skiti, if indeed he commented at all. Pitamber’s argument that, “if” Moosa’s account contradicted or qualified Majozi’s narrative in any material respect, the decision not to report is a deliberate suppression of balance, is – at best – speculative.
  3. Of course, Pitamber could be right in this regard. However, I am not going to base a finding on speculation.

Working relationship between Pitamber, Majozi

  1. Pitamber says Skiti omits the fact that she and Majozi had a working relationship for nearly three years after the alleged extortion. She argues that this fact undermines, or at least calls into question, his allegation that she extorted him into paying R25 million.
  2. I am not convinced that reporting this fact would have made a material difference to the gist of the article.

The second article: Pitamber’s answering affidavit

  1. The complaint is that this article inter alia omits to report:

a. that Majozi withdrew his protection order applications and that he tendered to pay for the costs thereof, after having failed to deliver a replying affidavit (even though Pitamber demanded that it be published);

b. Pitamber’s denial that there was a “dirt file”, compiled by her, with a photograph marked “RIP” with Majozi’s family in the background; and

c. that investigating officers confirmed that no such photograph appears in the police docket.

124. Dollie argues that these omissions constitute material as well as intentional, grossly negligent departures from the facts.

125. While I need to commend Sunday Times for quite an extensive reportage of Pitamber’s answering affidavit, I must also question why those material facts were not reported.

126. I also note that the article reports that Majozi “opened a criminal case of extortion against Pitamber” but neglects to report her contention that he withdrew that case. That is unbalanced reporting.

No independent verification of RIP

  1. Pitamber complains that the RIP reference is so damaging that it needed to be independently verified.
  2. Arena correctly cites a finding by the then Deputy Press Ombud, dated 17 April 2026, on the matter of Norman Sebaku v City Press. Wheatley contends that the Ombud ruled that the media may report filed court documents without independently verifying every allegation or seeking further comment.[3]

Pretorius’s opinion

  1. The article reports the following about labour law expert Danie Pretorius: “The allegations have left … Pretorius taken aback. A director at Fluxmans Attorneys and a former acting judge in the labour court, Pretorius described the payment as ‘extraordinary’ in a legal opinion appended to Majozi’s application. On the facts provided to me, if asked what would have been an appropriate amount for a golden handshake, I would have advised that six months would be appropriate, especially given that Adv Nazreen earned a substantial salary of R430,000 a month… It’s unclear why an ex gratia payment would be payable in circumstances where, on the facts contained in Mr Majozi’s affidavit, Adv Nazreen had tendered her resignation, he added.”
  2. Pitamber’s complaint is that the journalist used Pretorius’s professional standing and judicial experience to lend credibility to Majozi’s case, particularly the claim that the R25 million settlement was “extraordinary”, without adequately explaining the limitations of his opinion. She also submits that his opinion is presented as fact.
  3. Arena’s defence is that Pretorius’s opinion is attached to Majozi’s affidavit, which made that document court reporting. That is correct because:

a. Arena had the right to quote Pretorius;

b. one needs some imagination to state that the reportage turns an allegation into a fact; and

c. the article qualifies the matter by stating that he was responding “based on facts” provided to him – this means that Pretorius did not claim to have all the facts at his disposal, and therefore that his opinion should be understood in that context.

Evidence of bias

  1. Pitamber’s complaint about bias is twofold. She submits that:

a. Arena reported on the content of Majozi’s affidavit before her answering affidavit was due; and

b. the publications decided to wait for Majozi’s replying affidavit before reporting on her answering affidavit.

Majozi’s affidavit

  1. This part of the complaint has no legs to stand on. Arena is correct – publications are not duty-bound to wait for court proceedings to unfold before they can report on the matter.

Pitamber’s affidavit

  1. Sunday Times, by its own admission, decided to wait for Majozi’s replying affidavit before publishing Pitamber’s answering affidavit.
  2. The question is whether this decision was in breach of the Press Code.
  3. The timeline is important:

a. Majozi’s founding affidavit is dated 1 April 2026;

b. The first article is published on 24 May 2026;

c. Pitamber’s answering affidavit is dated 1 June 2026;

d. Majozi’s replying affidavit is dated 3 July 2026; and

e. The second article is published on July 26.

137. This means that the publication waited for approximately eight weeks to report on Pitamber’s affidavit.

138. Clause 1.9 of the Press Code states, “The media shall supplement [a report] once new information becomes available.”

139. I emphasise the use of the word “once” in this clause. To me, that means “as soon as possible”. This means that Arena should have reported on her affidavit on Sunday, June 7. If, for some reason that was not possible, then it should have been published on June 14.

140. However, the decision was made – the publication was going to wait for Majozi’s replying affidavit.

141. I can see no valid reason for that decision. I believe the seriousness of the RIP allegation against Pitamber aggravates the matter, even though Sunday Times did say that it regretted the misquote.

142. I also share Pitamber’s concern that Sunday Times published the article prior to her answering affidavit (which it was entitled to do) but then did not do the same with her affidavit. That was not fair.

143. See below for a further argument on this matter.

Inadequate time to respond?

  1. Dollie says in his rejoinder that Pitamber has complained about inadequate time given by the journalist for a response. (See Paragraphs 89 and 90.)
  2. That is not true – he mentions that matter but does not complain about it; it also does not feature in the relief that Pitamber seeks.
  3. It would be improper for me to adjudicate a complaint that was never lodged, and which Arena did not have an opportunity to respond to.

‘Regret’, harm to dignity, reputation

  1. In an editor’s note, the following was stated: “The article has been changed to correct the misquoting of Majozi’s statement to the police. We regret the error.”
  2. This “regret” is indeed a small step in the right direction, but it is not nearly enough.
  3. I consider the following factors to be aggravating:

a. “Regret” is not equal to a public apology to Pitamber;

b. The regret was only published online and not also in print, where the allegations had been published;

c. The newspaper had an opportunity in the second story to publish her explicit denial of the central allegations in the first article, but neglected to do so; and

d. Sunday Times is one of the country’s most widely read newspapers.

FINDING

RIP

  1. Given the circumstances, I find that the relevant quote by Majozi is in breach of the following clauses of the Press Code:

a. 1.1 – “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”;

b. 1.2  – “The media shall present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion … or misrepresentation…”; and

c. 3.3– “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation…”

Failing to respond

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Selective quotation, contradicting a court document

  1. The neglect to report Clause 7.7 is unfair and unbalanced and is in breach of the following clauses of the Press Code:

a. 1.1 : “The media shall take care to report news … fairly”; and

b. 1.2 : “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…”

Some other omissions

Moosa’s account

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Working relationship between Pitamber, Majozi

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

The second article: Pitamber’s answering affidavit

  1. This part of the complaint is upheld as the journalist neglected to report:
  2. that Pitamber denied she had compiled a dirt file, with RIP across a picture of Majozi’s family and that the settlement agreement had been signed under duress – those denials concerned the crux of her complaint;
  3. that investigating officers confirmed that no such photograph appears in the police docket; and
  4. that Majozi withdrew his protection order applications.
  5. Those are in breach of Clause 1.1 and 1.2 of the Code.

No independent verification of RIP

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Pretorius’s opinion

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Evidence of bias

Majozi’s affidavit

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Pitamber’s affidavit

  1. The decision by the newspaper to only publish Pitamber’s answering affidavit after having received Majozi’s replying affidavit resulted in the publication of her side of the story approximately 8 weeks after her affidavit. This is in breach of Clause 1.9 of the Press Code which states, “The media shall supplement [a report] once new information becomes available.” (my emphasis)

Inadequate time to respond?

  1. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

‘Regret’, harm to dignity, reputation

  1. The harm that the allegations against Pitamber had caused her is immeasurable. “Regretting” this mistake is not nearly enough.

SANCTION

  1. Arena is directed to:

a. publish an unconditional apology to Pitamber:

i. acknowledging that the reportage (regarding the “dirt” file, with the picture that shows Majozi’s family, together with “RIP” across the photograph), was irresponsible and baseless and recognising that it has caused huge and unnecessary harm to her dignity and reputation;

ii. for failing to report that investigating officers confirmed that no such photograph appeared in the police docket;

iii. for only reporting Majozi’s statement in his founding affidavit that the settlement agreement was made “under severe duress, extortion and an engineered atmosphere of fear”, without also mentioning Clause 7.7 of the settlement agreement, which states that the agreement was concluded freely and voluntarily, without undue influence or duress; and

iv. for waiting nearly 8 weeks before publishing the core content of her answering affidavit – while, in the meantime, the harm to her reputation and dignity continued unabatingly.

b. give Pitamber a right of reply of not more than 350 words, should she wish to do so; and

c. publish in full, in a separate box, the wording of Clause 1.1, 1.2, 1.9 and 3.3 of the Press Code.

164. The above should:

a. 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;

b. be published in print, on top of page 2, and on all platforms of the publication where the article was published;

c. be published, with appropriate prominence, with the apology in the introductory sentence and with a headline including the words “apology” and “Pitamber”;

d. refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;

e. end with the sentence, “Visit org.za for the full finding”;

f. be published with the logo of the Press Council; and

g. 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 Deputy Press Ombud

20 October 2026

[1] For the record: The affidavit is dated 1 April 2026, while the first article was published on May 24.

[2] The exact wording, dated 18 April 2023, is: “The parties confirm that this Agreement culminated out of mediation proceedings held by Peer Carrim Attorneys as mandated by the parties and that they have concluded this Agreement freely and voluntarily without undue influence or duress and that they are aware of their right to seek independent legal advice as recommended by Peer Carrim Attorneys.”

[3] This office has made the same ruling on several occasions. Incidentally, one of those are mine (in my finding of Tulani Mulaudzi v Sunday Independent, dated 16 October 2014).

Related Posts