The complaint was lodged on 5 May 2026. As it was misdirected, the complaint was initially not picked up by the Press Council of SA (PCSA) office.
The complainant made follow-up inquiries in late July, but the Public Advocate initially turned down the complaint as being late. When the complainant provided the evidence that he filed the complaint in time, it was accepted.
Robin Wheatley, the legal adviser to the Sunday Times, filed a response on September 7.
The complainant submitted a rejoinder on September 17.
The matter was then passed on to me. While considering the complaint, I found an additional article of relevance, written by Jeanette Chabalala and published on both the TimesLive and Sowetan websites, headlined “TK Nciza overreacting by suing me for my Zahara comments, says activist”. (https://www.sowetan.co.za/news/2026-05-05-tk-nciza-overreacting-by-suing-me-for-my-zahara-comments-says-activist/ ) The headline on TimesLive is marginally different, referring to Magibili by name. (https://www.timeslive.co.za/tshisa-live/2026-05-05-tk-nciza-overreacting-by-suing-me-for-my-zahara-comments-says-activist/ )
I asked both parties to comment on the relevance of the article to the matter, as well as for some further information, and received responses from the complainant on 14 October and from the respondent on 15 October. Further clarification from the Sunday Times came on 28 October.
I have taken all submissions into account in considering the matter, including recordings of telephone conversations, WhatsApp exchanges, supporting legal papers, as well as points made in various email exchanges.

The article

The article reports that a dispute between the complainant, described as an arts activist, and former Gauteng ANC secretary TK Nciza has now escalated to a point where Nciza is seeking a default judgment against Magibili for defamation. At issue are comments Magibili made on a podcast that allegedly accused Nciza of being responsible for the death of the singer Zahara. The amount being claimed is R5m.
The article quotes Nciza’s lawyer as saying that summons were served on Magibili at his residence in February. He did not indicate his intention to defend the action by the deadline provided, according to the lawyer, leading to the application for a default judgment.
Magibili is not quoted in the article as originally published. At a later point, a sentence was added to the article on TimesLive quoting Magibili as saying he did not receive the summons.
The second article quotes him at greater length. He denies the summons was ever served on him, points out that he lives in Sterkspruit, not KuGompo City (formerly East London), where the summons was reportedly served on him. He is quoted as saying he merely received a letter of demand on WhatsApp some time before, not a formal summons.
He also says the comments leading to the dispute were metaphorical, referring to Zahara’s treatment at the hands of Nciza’s firm, TS Records. They were not meant literally, he says.

The complaint

The complaint refers to breaches of Clauses 1, 1.8 and 3.3 of the Press Code. Though the complainant references many other clauses at points of his submissions, these were the ones initially identified and which are at the heart of the matter. I have added, however, added Clauses 1.9 and 1.11 for reasons that will become clear.

Complaint: Inaccuracy: service of summons

Arguments

The complaint is that the article reported claims by Nciza’s lawyer, Dumisani Motsamai, that summons were served on him at his home in KuGompo City without verifying them, while he in fact lives in Sterkspruit and was never served with a summons.
The respondents contend that their reporting accurately reports the substance of the matter before court and submit the relevant court papers to support the argument.
The papers contain Motsamai’s claim, made by way of an affidavit in support of the application for summary judgment, that the papers were served on Magibili and that he failed to respond.
As for the disputed service of summons, the submitted court papers also include the sheriff’s return showing that the summons was served at an address identified as Magibili’s in KuGompo City. The recipient is shown as “IREN/AUNT” – so not to Magibili personally, but still within the rules governing the service of summons, the respondent says.
In a lengthy rejoinder, the complainant argues that the claim made in court papers should have been verified independently. “Does information becoming ‘court papers’ suspend the Press Code?” he asks.

Discussion

At the heart of the complaint is a simple question: was it reasonable to publish claims made in court papers without verifying them independently?
A sworn statement to court asserts that summons was served on the complainant, but he disputes that this is so.
Reading the documents closely, it is perfectly possible that the summons was properly served but did not reach the complainant. That is a matter the court will have to consider.
The complainant asserts that the journalist should have checked, specifically by seeking his comment.
Since the two questions are so closely interlinked, I will deal with the question of a right to reply next.

Complaint: Right of reply: failure to obtain comment

Arguments

The complainant argues that the journalist was obliged to seek his comment on the matter.
If that had been done, various claims would not have been left uncontested in the report, including that he was served summons; that he lives in KuGompo City; that there is a “jurisdictional defect” as he in fact lives in Sterkspruit; that his comments on the podcast were taken out of context; and that the elements of defamation were not met.
The respondent argues that they were not required to seek comment as they were reporting on statements made in a court process. Nevertheless, the reporter tried to reach Magibili by phone. Screenshots of the calls made were supplied.
In addition, the respondent points out that the article includes a sentence recording Magibili’s denial that he was served the summons.
In his rejoinder, the complainant says the telephone numbers used by the reporter were not his.
In addition, he points out that the sentence recording his denial was asserted some time after the initial report was published, after what he says were repeated interventions on his part. In any event, the addition does not resolve the initial failing to include his version.
In a response to my query, the Sunday Times says the telephone numbers used were provided by the sheriff, who in turn obtained them from Nciza’s lawyer.
With regard to the follow-up article of May 5, which concentrates on his version, the Sunday Times argues it should be taken into account as it materially addresses his concerns by capturing his version. The article was published online but not in print, the publisher says.
In another lengthy response to my follow-up query, the complainant poses further questions about the phone numbers used.
He also says that the follow-up article came after he released a press statement and relies heavily on it. He argues that the second article does not resolve the original problem of a failure to reflect his version. In several email communications, he stresses that his complaint is about the article as originally published, and that later changes make no difference to the original defect.

Discussion

Several points raised by the complainant clearly fall outside of the scope of a complaint in terms of the Press Code. It will be up to the courts to decide whether there is a “jurisdictional defect” in the lawsuit, whether his remarks were taken out of context and whether they were defamatory.
What remains is the central claim that summons was not in fact served on him.
In general, the media are entitled to report claims made in court proceedings as they are made, without necessarily having to seek comment at every turn. Court proceedings constitute a privileged context, where the process of discovering the truth is left to the judiciary. By definition, court processes contain a series of claims and counterclaims, and the media are required to report them fairly as they emerge in court.
Several Ombud’s Panel rulings have accordingly made the point that Clause 1.8 of the Press Code does not apply in the context of court proceedings. Examples include Norman Sebaku vs City Press, Tuwani Mulaudzi vs Sunday Independent and Siyabonga Gama vs Sunday Times. In Sebaku, then deputy ombud Tyrone August said “there is no obligation on the media to seek comment on court documents”, and quoted former Press Ombud Johan Retief and former Ombud Herman Scholtz to similar effect.
In his submissions, the complainant refers to several Ombud rulings that he argues demonstrate he should have been asked for comment.
The complainant references Gravitate MVC and David Mortimer vs Sunday World, which arose out of a row about fronting claims, where he argues the finding recognised the need to obtain comment even where a formal complaint was laid.
However, in that case the matter was not before a court of law but had been submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry’s Broad Based Black Empowerment Commission (BBBEE Commission), which has significantly lesser powers than a court. In addition, the Sunday World report was not centrally about the complaint or any formal process that followed but about a dispute between business partners: the fact that a complaint was laid as a result of the dispute only comes up relatively late in the article. Though the then ombud Pippa Green ruled that some parts of the complainant’s responses were not fairly represented by Sunday World, there is no reference in her ruling to the status of the BBBEE complaint documents.
Another ruling Magibili references is Mulaudzi vs Sunday Times. He argues that though that ruling accepts that court papers can be reported without necessarily asking for the other side’s comment, it “identified another important consideration”: that Mulaudzi was not central to the report. In his case, Magibili argues, he was very much central to the report and therefore should have been contacted.
However, the complainant reads too much into the ruling. Mulaudzi did not rest on whether the article was prominently about him or not. When it came to his right of reply, the then Press Ombud Johan Retief was quite unequivocal, writing: “(I)t is not accepted journalistic practice to ask a party in a court case for comment”. Retief also took into account that the reporting did not contain anything new.
Other cases referenced by the complainant deal with aspects of the right of reply without assisting with the specific circumstances that arise in the context of a court case.
In the present case, the general rule around reporting court cases applies. The report complained about relies on documents before court. That includes the contested claim that summons were served, which are contained in the affidavit by Nciza’s attorney, Dumisani Motsamai. Though the report uses the phrase “the Sunday Times has established” that Magibili failed to file a notion of intention to defend, careful reading of the text and court papers shows that the statement simply comes from the lawyer’s affidavit.
The article makes it clear throughout that the claims originate in the papers filed to court.
There was therefore no obligation on the journalist to seek comment for the original report. It follows that his attempt to call the complainant for comment went over and above the requirements. The fact that phone numbers were used that have since turned out to be incorrect is therefore not decisive.
The next question to consider is what the impact is of the insertion of the reference to Magibili’s denial to one of the original reports, and of the publication of the May 5 follow-up report that quoted his statement.
The complainant argues that the amendment of the article shows that the matter was important and should have been included from the start. He also argues that it does not remedy the original breach.
With regard to the May 5 article, he argues it has no impact on his complaint which was about the original article. He also argues the later report is based on a press statement he released, and so does not relieve the publication of the obligation to ask him for comment.
The respondents argue that the addition to the original article meant his perspective was included. They also argue that the follow-up article quoted him at length and addressed the principal matters he wanted to have included.
I have argued that there was no requirement to approach him for comment for the original report. However, his response, including his denial of having been served and his rejection of the allegation of defamation, represents a material new development. It is of particular importance in the context of an application for summary judgment where his version, for whatever reason, is not before the court.
Of relevance here is Clause 1.9 of the Press Code, which requires the media to “state where a report is based on limited information, and supplement it once new information becomes available”. In Parliament vs Daily Maverick, the then Press Ombud Johan Retief referred to the clause in ruling that the newspaper should have reported the later outcome of an investigation whose start had been reported.
The respondents deserve credit for having added a line, though brief, to the original story on TimesLive. The fact that it was not added to the version on the Sowetan is odd, but not a breach.
More substantially, the follow-up article on both websites on May 5 serves to satisfy the requirement of Clause 1.9.
At the same time, the publisher is at fault for not having included the follow-up article in the print version of the Sunday Times. Readers of the print edition, as much as online readers, deserve to see Magibili’s version.
The fact that the information in the second article is based on the complainant’s press statement is neither here nor there: what matters is whether his perspective was represented.
There is one further problem with the additional line inserted in the original article: the amendment was made without drawing attention to the fact that it was a later addition. That is in breach of Clause 1.11 of the Press Code, which requires the media to “prominently indicate when content that was published online has been amended or an apology or retraction published”.

Finding

I find that the respondents did not breach the Press Code by reporting inaccuracies.
I find that the respondents did not breach the Press Code by failing to obtain comment from the complainant.
I find that the respondents breached Clause 1.9 by failing to publish a follow-up article containing the complainant’s version in the print edition of the Sunday Times.
I find that the respondents breached Clause 1.11 by failing to make it clear that the material added to the TimesLive article was a later addition.

Complaint: Infringement of privacy, dignity or reputation

Arguments

The complainant argues that his dignity and reputation has been harmed by the article, which creates the false impression that he is avoiding court processes and defamed Nciza.
The respondents argue that the matter involves a prominent deceased musician and litigation by a former political official, and is therefore of public interest. The reporting relies on court papers, they say, and is therefore protected in terms of Section 3.3 of the Press Code.
In his rejoinder, the complainant asserts again that his reputation was harmed by the publication of misleading information.

Discussion

The relevant provision of the Press Code (3.3), requires the media to

exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation, which may be overridden only if it is in the public interest and if

one of a number of conditions are met. The condition of relevance here is 3.3.3, which refers to reportage that is

a fair and accurate report of court proceedings, Parliamentary proceedings or the proceedings of any quasi-judicial tribunal or forum

I have already found that the reporting was fair and accurate coverage of court proceedings.
The report therefore satisfies the requirements of Clause 3.3.

Finding

I find that the respondents did not breach the Press Code by infringing the complainants right to privacy, dignity and reputation.

Ruling

The respondent breached Clause 1.9 of the Press Code by failing to report the complainant’s version in the print edition of the Sunday Times.
The respondent breached Clause 1.11 of the Press Code by failing to indicate that the original report on TimesLive was amended after publication.
The rest of the complaint is

Sanction

The respondent is reprimanded for the breaches described above.

The respondent is ordered to publish a report on Magibili’s response in the print edition of the Sunday Times. The article should be along the lines of the May 5 articles published online and must include an editor’s note that

indicates the article is published as a result of this ruling;
refers readers to the PCSA website for the full ruling;
includes the logo of the PCSA;
must be published as soon as possible after the period for a possible appeal has lapsed or, in the event of an appeal, after that ruling; and
Be approved by me.

The respondent is ordered to add an editor’s note to the bottom of the original article on TimesLive, indicating when the additional sentence reflecting Magibili’s denial was added. The note should also

Refer to this ruling;
Include a link to this ruling;
Include the logo of the PCSA;
Be added as soon as possible after the period for a possible appeal has lapsed or, in the event of an appeal, after that ruling; and
Be approved by me.

Appeal

The Complaints Procedures lay down 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@presscpouncilsa.org.za

Ruling by
Franz Krüger, Deputy Press Ombud
30 October 2026

Magibili vs Sunday Times / TimesLive

Related Posts

Financial Mail vs Ms Bojane Segooa

Antonio Iozzo et al v News24

National Library of South Africa vs News24