This Content is for Subscribers Only
Deputy Press Ombud Tyrone August has dismissed a complaint brought by Moepathutse Property Investments and its directors against investigative centre amaBhungane. The case, which challenged two Daily Maverick articles on an Independent Development Trust (IDT) lease controversy, centred on allegations of bias, omission, and reputational harm.
WHAT HAPPENED
The dispute arose from a two-part series published by Daily Maverick and amaBhungane in May 2025. The reports alleged that former Public Works Minister Sihle Zikalala and then-IDT chairperson Kwazi Mshengu protected IDT chief executive Tebogo Malaka from probes into a disputed R45-million lease involving Moepathutse Property Investments.
Moepathutse, led by directors Thaba and Vhonani Mufamadi, argued the articles unfairly painted the company as politically exposed and corrupt, despite a High Court ruling dismissing claims of irregularity. The firm said that failing to reference this judgment in Part One amounted to distortion and defamation.
OFFICIAL RESPONSE
AmaBhungane countered that the two reports must be read together, noting that Part Two explicitly included the court’s findings. It said Moepathutse’s denials and legal victories were fairly presented within the series.
Deputy Ombud August agreed, finding that the omission in Part One did not amount to a Press Code breach when considered alongside Part Two. He stressed that serialised investigative reports must be judged in context.
“Stories should be read as a whole when published within a reasonable time frame,” August ruled, echoing prior case law.
The Ombud therefore rejected Moepathutse’s request for a retraction, apology, and editorial sanction.
COMMUNITY IMPACT
The ruling reinforces protections for investigative journalism in South Africa, balancing the rights of subjects with the media’s duty to publish in the public interest. It highlights ongoing tensions between politically connected businesses and watchdog reporters probing state procurement.
While Moepathutse maintains its reputation was unfairly damaged, the Press Council ruling may embolden newsrooms to continue pursuing complex stories across multiple instalments.
FAQ
Why was the complaint lodged?
Moepathutse argued that critical facts—particularly a High Court ruling in its favour—were omitted from Part One of the series.
What did the Ombud decide?
The Ombud found that when read with Part Two, the reporting was fair, accurate, and did not breach the Press Code.
Does this end the matter?
Yes. Unless Moepathutse appeals to the Appeals Panel, the Ombud’s finding is final.
