Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure vs Mail & Guardian

Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August

23 May 2025

Finding: Complaint 32091

Date of publication: 27 September 2024

 Headline:

Swindler Howard Mashaba hijacks a state building

https://mg.co.za/news/2024-09-27-swindler-howard-mashabe-hijacks-a-state-building/

Author: Khaya Koko

Particulars

This finding is based on a written complaint on behalf of Public Works and Infrastructure Minister Dean Macpherson by Mr L Ngwenya from the Office of the State Attorney, along with three annexures; a written reply on behalf of Mail & Guardian by its Editor-in-Chief, Mr Luke Feltham; and a further written response by Mr Ngwenya.

Complaint

The complainant submits that the article transgresses Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.8 and 10.1 of the Press Code:

“1. The media shall:

“1.1 take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly;

“1.2 present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarisation;

“1.3 present only what may reasonably be true as fact; opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such; …

“1.8 seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication, except when they might be prevented from reporting, or evidence destroyed, or sources intimidated. Such a subject should be afforded reasonable time to respond; if unable to obtain comment, this shall be stated; …

 

“10.1 Headlines, captions to pictures and posters shall not mislead the public and shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report or picture in question …”

1. Summary of article

1.1. According to the article, convicted fraudster Howard Mashaba demolished state property in Limpopo to build a hotel. It further reports that, according to well-placed sources, Public Works and Infrastructure Minister Dean Macpherson allegedly failed to act when alerted about the matter.

1.1.1. The article adds that Deputy President Paul Mashatile’s office sought legal advice and was in the process of approaching the State Security Agency (SSA) after Mashaba allegedly forged a letter claiming that he would attend the opening of the new hotel.

1.2. These revelations reportedly come on the back of an ongoing legal case against Mashaba, who was released on R5 000 bail in August 2024 for allegedly violating a protection interdict granted by the Giyani magistrate’s court in favour of Rosinah Mashele.

1.2.1. According to court documents, Mashele had a two-year lease with the public works department but was allegedly evicted by Mashaba and those working under his orders before he began building his hotel in July 2024.

1.3. Sources in the public works department claim that Macpherson was aware of the matter but did not act on it because, according to an unnamed insider, he “was busy concentrating on Cape Town issues”.

1.3.1. The source believes the Minister would have acted if the property in question was in the Western Cape, alluding to a statement by Macpherson that welcomed the Western Cape high court’s ruling evicting the illegal occupants of the Castle of Good Hope.

1.3.2. Another source said provincial departmental officials were supposed to attend to Mashele’s complaints but did not do so and thereby failed someone who was a good tenant and never missed any rental payments.

1.3.3. The publication contacted ministerial spokesperson James de Villiers. He acknowledged its enquiry, but did not respond by the time of publication.

1.4. A protection order was reportedly granted against Mashaba in July 2024 for what Limpopo police described as the “violent” removal of Mashele from the house that she was leasing.

1.4.1. Mashele provided details in her court affidavit of her ordeal before she was removed from the house. Her electricity was reportedly switched off and bricks and sand were dumped in front of the property, which prevented her and her family from leaving the house.

1.4.2. Mashele attached her signed lease agreement with the public works department and her rental payments, and requested that the department be called to testify. However, the department did not testify and the protection order was granted without the assistance of the department.

1.5. In response to the allegations, Mashaba said that Mashele was not “a legal tenant” of the property and disputed the validity of her lease agreement.

1.5.1. He added that he was in the process of obtaining a title deed for the house as well as for other properties that he had bought from the department of public works,

1.6. The publication further reports that in July 2024 Mashatile’s office declined an invitation from Mashaba to attend the launch of his hotel, then under construction, as well as a “business summit” in Giyani.

1.6.1. However, Mashaba allegedly circulated a letter that claimed that the Deputy President would indeed attend the opening of the hotel. The publication also reported on a video in which Mashaba claims that Mashatile and businessman Patrice Motsepe would attend the opening.

1.6.2. Keith Khoza, Mashatile’s acting spokesperson, told the publication that the Deputy President did not confirm that he would attend.

1.6.3. According to sources in Mashatile’s office, officials planned to approach the SSA “to investigate this fraud” and furthermore intended to seek legal counsel because the letter purporting to confirm his attendance “was manipulated by someone”.

2. Arguments

Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure

2.1. The complainant starts off by referring to the publication’s request for comment from his spokesperson, James de Villiers, on 20 September 2024 and to a follow-up by the publication on 23 September 2024.

2.1.1. He notes that the original request states that, according to a deeds search by the respondent, the property in question is owned “by the Limpopo Public Works Department” (Annexure B1).

2.1.2. He says the respondent then asks whether the Minister is aware of the demolished Limpopo property and, if not, what actions he intends to take to remedy the situation. It goes on to ask: “How rife is the abuse and misuse of state assets in the country, according to the Minister’s perceptions since appointment?”

2.1.3. The complainant contends that the first question makes little sense in view of the fact that the property is not owned by the national department but by the provincial department of public works.

2.1.4. He further submits that the second question is so open-ended that, in effect, it does not have any meaning.

2.1.5. He argues that the respondent then proceeded to publish an article that contains factually incorrect information. In response, he requested an apology and asked the publication to correct the inaccurate information.

2.2. In the respondent’s reply, he says, the publication declared that it “had acted professionally and ethically” in its request for comment and that it had allowed more than adequate time for a response.

2.2.1. Furthermore, according to the complainant, the respondent’s response suggests that it did not publish any inaccurate information and that it did not make any attempt to link the Minister to any corrupt activities.

2.2.2. The publication suggested that the complainant provides a detailed response to be published “in the article with a note to say that it was amended to reflect new comment” or, alternatively, to publish a right-of-reply to the article with a link to the original article.

2.2.3. It also offered to remove the paywall on the article as a show of good faith to give non-subscribers access to all perspectives.

2.3. The complainant then outlines various specific aspects of his complaint. He first takes issue with the caption that accompanies a photograph of Mashaba and objects to the reference to the hotel as “state property and thus falls under the portfolio of Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson” (emphases added in the complaint).

2.3.1. He submits that it is neither true nor accurate that the property falls under his portfolio and maintains that the publication knew that this was false.

2.4. In addition, the complainant claims that the article contains statements that are inaccurate and, in fact, defamatory.

2.4.1. He starts off by saying that it is misleading to write that he failed to act when he was alerted that state property was demolished. He believes that this paints an “unfair picture” of him.

2.4.2. In particular, the complainant objects to the reference that he “was aware of the scandal, but had not acted on it”. He further takes issue with the claim that he failed to act “despite knowing about the vandalism of a state asset by a convicted criminal”.

2.4.3. He refers to several other parts of the article as well which, in his view, imply that he failed in his constitutional duties as Minister. He therefore believes the article – “as a whole and read in context” – defames him and links him to corrupt activities.

2.4.4. He emphasises that the property allegedly hijacked by Mashaba belongs to the provincial public works department in Limpopo and not to the national department – in fact and in law. Moreover, he maintains, the respondent was aware of this.

2.5. The complainant also objects to “the manner” in which the article was published online and describes it as dishonest, misleading and unfair.

2.5.1. He refers to the first line of the article, which claims that he allegedly knew that Mashaba had demolished government property and built a hotel. According to him, the rest of the article is then placed behind a paywall to deliberately mislead readers to believe that he was “involved”.

2.5.2. He reiterates his contention that the publication sought to involve him “at all costs” in a property owned by the provincial government and to link him to a convicted fraudster (see points 2.4.2 and 2.4.3).

2.6. The complainant then sums up the grounds of his complaint as follows: firstly, he believes the respondent failed in its duties in relation to requesting comment; and, secondly, the headline, caption and article as a whole are untrue, inaccurate and unfair.

2.6.1. With regard to the first issue, he says the respondent requested answers to a question that lacked a clear focus.

2.6.1.1. His spokesperson requested more time to respond and the publication followed up its initial enquiry three days later. When no response was received, the respondent published the article in question.

2.6.1.2. The complainant asks why the publication was in a rush to publish the article when it concerned events that covered a number of years and was not urgent in any way. He adds that, in view of the fact that a detailed response was expected, it was reasonable to accept that it would take more than a few days to comply.

2.6.1.3. Furthermore, he says, the respondent states in its question that the demolished property was owned by the Limpopo government yet does not include this fact in the article that it published.

2.6.1.4. He believes that his complaint to the publication should have been followed immediately by a correction of the inaccuracies and of the false impression that linked his “inaction” to a convicted fraudster.

2.6.2. With regard to the second issue, the complainant repeats his view that the caption is misleading in that the new hotel does not fall under his portfolio (see point 2.3.1).

2.6.2.1. He adds that it is unfair, inaccurate and untrue of the article to suggest that he failed to act for illegitimate reasons when, in fact, the Minister has no power to take action on a property owned by a provincial department (see point 2.4.4).

2.7. In conclusion, the complainant asks that the complaint against the caption and the article be upheld; calls for the publication to be reprimanded; and requests a retraction and an apology on the respondent’s social media accounts.

Mail & Guardian

2.8. The respondent submits that the complaint is based on bad faith and maintains that the complainant wilfully ignored attempts to resolve the matter amicably. Instead, it says, he chose to register a complaint with the Press Ombud that is filled with conjecture.

2.8.1. It points out that the complaint essentially contains the same objections outlined by the Minister in a letter to the publication on 27 September 2024. The publication notes that it stands by its response on 3 October 2024.

2.8.2. With regard to its request for comment, the publication quotes its statement in the letter that it “acted professionally and ethically” and that it allowed more than adequate time for a response from the Minister’s spokesperson. It notes that it only received one brief response from De Villiers in seven days.

2.8.2.1. In response to the complainant’s submission that “a proper ‘detailed response’ would take more just than a few days”, the respondent says that the article was published a week after it sent its questions – “well beyond even an ambitious interpretation of ‘a few days’ ”. In addition, it says, there was no indication from the spokesperson that more time was required.

2.8.2.2. The respondent also takes issue with the complainant’s claims that “There was objectively no rush to publish” and that “The article was not in any way time sensitive” (see point 2.6.1.2). It questions how the complainant can have any insight into such issues and states that the time of publication is at the sole discretion of the newsroom.

2.8.2.3. It adds that, even though the Minister’s perspective is framed as critical, the complainant offered no explanation as to why it ignored the publication’s invitation to insert comment into the article after it was published.

2.8.3. The respondent then addresses the complainant’s concern about the ownership of the building and again quotes from its original response to the Minister in which it states that his information would have been considered if his office had responded to the publication’s questions.

2.8.3.1. The publication further acknowledges that it was aware that the building in question is owned by the provincial department. However, it says, both the article and the correspondence with the Minister notes that he made a commitment to protect “state buildings nationwide”.

2.8.3.2. The respondent also quotes its statement from its letter to the Minister that, as part of the media, it has a responsibility “to report on all cabinet ministers and inform the public about their actions”.

2.8.3.3. In line with this approach, the letter says, it published an article about the Minister’s walkabout in the eThekwini metro, which could be interpreted as positive coverage of his pledge.

2.8.3.4. The letter further notes that at no point did the article attempt to link him to corrupt activities nor did it allege that he committed any acts of corruption.

2.8.3.5. The publication also says it published further articles on the Minister since the article that is the subject of this complaint, which illustrates its ongoing commitment to interrogating his pledge to protect “state buildings nationwide”.

2.8.3.6. It maintains that there is no evidence to justify the complainant’s assertion that the publication intended a “hit piece”.

2.8.4. The respondent concedes that the phrasing of the caption is not strictly accurate. However, it submits, there was no reason to believe that the Minister did not have jurisdiction over the building in view of the fact that it is state property.

2.8.4.1. It notes that this would never have been printed if the Minister or his department had responded to the publication’s enquiry. It also points out that the issue of the caption was raised for the first time in the complaint and was not in the Minister’s original letter.

2.8.4.2. The publication further states that this detail in the caption “does not invalidate the primary article”.

2.8.5. In addition, the respondent responds to various points in the complaint which it believes highlight the disingenuous nature of the complaint and what it regards as its unnecessary animus.

2.8.5.1. It denies that the article suggests that the Minister would have acted had the property in question been situated in the Western Cape rather than in Limpopo. It says this presumably refers to a claim by a source quoted in the article.

2.8.5.2. It again denies any attempt to link the complainant to corrupt activities or that the article makes any defamatory claims (see point 2.8.3.4) and adds that no evidence has been offered to justify the claim that the article was undertaken as a “hit piece” (point 2.8.3.6).

2.8.5.2.1. In fact, it regards the claim that its journalist was determined to write such a piece as bordering on defamation.

2.8.5.3. The publication denies that the online article was “buried” behind a paywall and maintains that a paywall is “a deliberate tool of our business model, as it is with many publications”. Moreover, it says, the complainant fails to mention that it removed the paywall as an offer of good faith; it regards this omission as dishonest and unfair.

2.8.5.3.1. Furthermore, it says that if the publication did need to resort to “paywall chicanery” to mislead readers into believing that the Minister was involved, the complainant is implying that the article taken as a whole does not do so.

2.8.5.3.2. It believes this directly contradicts his other claims and is further evidence that the complainant “has not entered into this process intending to reach a sensible solution but has deployed a spray and pray approach”.

2.8.5.4. The respondent takes issue as well with the claim that it does not present an independent picture to readers to enable them to make up their own minds. It says that its repeated requests for comment – both before and after publication – demonstrate its intention to do so.

2.8.5.5. Lastly, the publication says it fails to understand how its suggested resolution could be construed as revealing its “ill-intent to write the article”.

2.8.5.5.1. Nevertheless, the publication says, it remains committed to its responsibility to present information to its readers “that reflects the perspective of all reporting subjects”. As such, its original proposal remains on the table (see point 2.2.2).

2.8.5.5.2. In addition, it says it will amend the caption to reflect new information, along with a note to reflect this.

Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure

2.9. In reply to Mail & Guardian’s response, the complainant denies that his complaint is based on bad faith and that he wilfully ignored attempts to resolve the matter amicably (see point 2.8).

2.9.1. He points out that he sent a letter to the publication on 27 September 2024, in which he identifies inaccuracies in the article.

2.9.1.1. He adds that, instead of immediately approaching a court of law or the Press Ombud, he chose to give the publication an opportunity to correct the article and to apologise to him and the department.

2.9.1.2. However, despite these inaccuracies, he says the publication denied that its article was incorrect. It also did not explain why it denied that it did not put certain allegations to him that were made by “inside sources”.

2.9.1.3. Instead, he says, the publication refused to correct the article and apologise, and simply invited him to provide his “perspective” on the contents of the article.

2.9.1.4. Despite this, the complainant says, he did not approach a court of law but instead submitted a complaint to the Press Ombud. He pointed out what he believes to be various inaccuracies in the article and once more requested a correction and an apology.

2.9.1.5. Yet once again, he says, the publication failed to provide a basis for its denials.

2.10. The complainant also takes issue with the respondent’s claim that his complaint contains conjecture and maintains that the publication does not specify the conjecture (point 2.8).

2.10.1. He denies this and submits that his complaint raises “multiple facts”. Any inferences made in the complaint, he argues, are reasonable and plausible.

2.11. The complainant denies as well that he was given adequate time to respond to the publication’s request for comment. He notes that De Villiers was contacted on 20 September 2024 and given a deadline of 23 September 2024.

2.11.1. He adds that the publication does not address the “flaws” in its questions (see points 2.1.3, 2.1.4 and 2.6.1.). He reiterates his view that it was unreasonable to expect a response to detailed questions within the time given (point 2.6.1.2)

2.11.2. He also submits that the allegations made by “inside sources” were not included in any of the publication’s questions.

2.11.3. He further says that the respondent did not give De Villiers a new deadline after he informed the publication that he was unable to meet the original deadline. As a result, the complainant argues, he was not made aware “by when his opportunity to comment would end”.

2.11.4. He adds that De Villiers was on an oversight visit with the Cape Town mayor when he received the initial request to comment. The following week was “unusually and unexpectedly busy”, he says, which made it necessary to rank matters in order of priority.

2.11.4.1. However, he adds that if he and De Villiers had been aware of the false and defamatory allegations made by “inside sources” (see points 2.9.1.2 and 2.11.2), “steps might have been urgently taken to prevent the allegations’ publication”.

2.12. The complainant further points out that the first line of the online article does not mention that the allegations in question were from “inside sources”.

2.12.1. He says this is only made clear in the rest of the article that was behind the paywall. He argues that this gives the impression that the allegations have greater credibility.

2.13. Lastly, the complainant denies the respondent’s contention that his complaint revolves around “the matter of fair comment” and maintains that the basis of his complaint is clearly set out in its contents.

2.13.1. He asserts that there is no prospect that the offers made by Mail & Guardian would rectify the reputational harm that he and his department has suffered. He therefore reiterates his view that the publication should correct the article and apologise to him and the department.

3. Analysis

3.1. Complaint one: The complainant claims that the caption to a photograph of Mashaba is inaccurate because the property that it refers to does not fall under the Minister’s portfolio and that the publication was aware of this (point 2.3.1).

3.1.1. In response, the respondent says that there was no reason to believe that the Minister does not have jurisdiction over the building as it is state property. It adds that it would not have published this had the complainant responded to its enquiry (points 2.8.4 and 2.8.4.1).

3.1.1.1. Nevertheless, the publication acknowledges that the way that the caption is phrased is not strictly accurate and offered to amend the caption to reflect the new information (points 2.8.4 and 2.8.5.5.2).

3.1.1.2. As it stands, though, the original caption is in breach of Clause 10.1 of the Press Code even if it was published in good faith.

3.2. Complaint two: The complainant takes issue with the allegation that he failed to take action when he was informed that state property was demolished to make way for a hotel built by Mashaba (points 2.4.1 and 2.4.2).

3.2.1. According to the Minister, he does not have the power to act in a matter that involves a property that is owned by a provincial department (point 2.6.2.1).

3.2.1.1. The publication acknowledges that it was aware that the property in question is owned by the provincial department of public works.

3.2.1.2. It was nevertheless under the impression at the time of publication that the building in Limpopo still falls under the Minister’s portfolio in view of the fact that it is state property.

3.2.1.3. The misconception was further reinforced in the eyes of the publication by the Minister’s commitment to protect state buildings throughout the country (point 2.8.3.1).

3.2.1.4. There is therefore merit in the publication’s assertion that the allegation that the Minister had failed to act on the Limpopo matter would not have been published if he had responded to its enquiry and clarified the issue of his jurisdiction (point  2.8.4.1).

3.2.1.5. In light of the above, it would be unreasonable to sanction the publication for being in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.3. Complaint three: The complainant claims that the article attempts to link him to corrupt activities or to a convicted fraudster (points 2.4.3 and 2.5.2).

3.3.1. However, nowhere does the article suggest – or even imply – that the Minister was in any way complicit in any corrupt activities.

3.3.1.1. The only allegation that the article directs at the complainant is that he failed to act when he was informed of the demolition of the Limpopo property. This claim was made by one of the sources quoted in the article and was clearly presented as such.

3.3.1.2. Furthermore, this source made no link between the complainant and any criminal activity. Instead, the source claimed that the Minister failed to act because his attention was focused on issues related to Cape Town (point 1.3).

3.3.1.3. There are therefore no grounds to support this aspect of the complaint. As a result, there is no breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code.

3.4. Complaint four: The complainant objects to the way the article was published online and maintains that the body of the article was deliberately placed behind a paywall in order to mislead readers into believing that he was involved in the demolition of the property in question (points 2.5 and 2.5.1).

3.4.1. However, a paywall has become common practice in the commercial media in recent years: it restricts access to digital content to paid subscribers in order to generate revenue for a publication.

3.4.1.1. In the case of this particular complaint, there is no indication that Mail & Guardian deviated from the standard way in which a paywall is erected. In other words, there is no evidence of deliberate intent to conceal certain information in order to mislead readers.

3.4.1.2. In fact, as the publication notes, it subsequently removed the paywall as an offer of good faith (point 2.8.5.3). This can be viewed as an indication that there was no ulterior motive behind the original placement of the body of the article behind a paywall.

3.4.1.3. Accordingly, there is no evidence that the publication is in breach of the Press Code (the complainant does not specify any particular clause, but this complaint presumably relates to Clause 1.1).

3.5. Complaint five: The complainant takes issue with various aspects of the respondent’s request for comment.

3.5.1. He says the first question makes little sense in view of the fact that the property in question is not owned by the national Department of Public Works but by the provincial department of public works (point 2.1.3).

3.5.1.1. It is not entirely clear why this was not pointed out from the onset. Instead, the Minister’s spokesperson asked for more time to respond.

3.5.1.2. While this is understandable initially in view of the fact that De Villiers was on an oversight visit with the Cape Town mayor, he did not respond to the publication’s follow-up enquiry three days later.

3.5.1.3. Even if the following week was unusually busy, as the complainant says, this was not communicated to the publication at any stage.

3.5.1.4. In the circumstances, the publication was therefore justified in regarding a week as a reasonable period within which to expect a response to its enquiry.

3.5.2. The complainant further objects to the second question on the grounds that it so open-ended and lacking in focus that it does not have any meaning (see points 2.1.4 and 2.6.1.). Again this raises the question of why this was not pointed out from the onset.

3.5.2.1. This cannot be attributed entirely to time constraints. It surely cannot reasonably take seven days to arrive at the conclusion that the question was meaningless and to inform the publication accordingly.

3.5.3. The complainant questions the timing of the publication of the article as well and asks why it was in a rush to publish it (point 2.6.1.2).

3.5.3.1. The publication rightly notes that the decision about the timing of publication is entirely at the discretion of the newsroom.

3.5.3.2. Its only obligation in regard to this aspect is that the subject of critical comment should be afforded a reasonable chance to reply. In this instance, the requirement was sufficiently met: it published the article seven days after it requested comment.

3.5.3.3. The Appeal Hearing Decision: News24 vs Conrad Gallagher supports such a conclusion: “The issue of whether the subject of critical reportage was given reasonable time to respond will depend upon, amongst other factors, the context, the nature of the reportage, the nature and complexity of the questions posed, and whether any meaningful and genuine attempts were made by the person to whom questions are posed to engage with them and reply. It will also be relevant for the party contending that the period provided for a response is unreasonable to stipulate what a reasonable period would be. The objective of clause 1.8 of the Code is not to delay the publication but rather to provide the subject of critical reportage a fair opportunity to reply.”[1]

3.5.3.4. On the basis of these considerations, the publication was indeed entitled to publish the article seven days after its initial request for comment.

3.5.4. The complainant further states that he and De Villiers may have taken steps to prevent publication of the allegations if they had been aware of certain comments made by “inside sources” (point 2.11.4.1).

3.5.4.1. However, a specific response to these particular allegations would arguably have become redundant if the complainant had pointed out in the first place that the Limpopo property falls outside his jurisdiction as the national Minister of Public Works.

3.6. Complaint six: The complainant regards the headline of the article as inaccurate (point 2.6). This is presumably because of the reference to the Limpopo property as “a state building”.

3.6.1. However, even though the headline may have been intended as a reference to a property owned by national government, it nevertheless remains correct.

3.6.1.1. As a unitary state, property owned by all three tiers of government – national, provincial and local – belongs to the Republic of South Africa and can therefore accurately be described as state property.

3.6.1.2. The Land Audit Report, published by the national Department of Rural Development and Land Reform in November 2017, specifically includes provincial property in a list of state property: “Land owned by national government, municipalities, provincial government, public entities, public schools were classified as state, including land in the name of Ingonyama Trust.”[2]

3.6.1.3. Thus, whether inadvertently or otherwise, the headline of the article remains correct and is therefore not in breach of Clause 10.1 of the Press Code.

4. Finding

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.4.1 to 3.4.1.3 of my Analysis.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is dismissed for the reasons set out in point 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.5 of my Analysis.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.3.1 to 3.3.1.3 of my Analysis.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.5.1 to 3.5.4.1 of my Analysis.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 10.1 with regard to the headline is dismissed for the reason outlined in points 3.6.1 to 3.6.1.3 of my Analysis.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 10.1 with regard to the caption is upheld for the reason specified in points 3.1.1 to 3.1.1.2 of my Analysis.

Firstly, Mail & Guardian is required to publish a correction for erroneously stating in the caption that the Limpopo property falls under the Minister’s portfolio. However, no further sanction is necessary for this breach of Clause 10.1 as the publication has offered a reasonable explanation for this error and it has already offered to correct the caption.

Secondly, this correction 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 in print, online on Mail & Guardian’s landing page for one day and on all its platforms where the caption was published;
• be published in print and online with a headline including the words “correction” and “Macpherson” or “Public Works Minister” (or a suitable equivalent);
• refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
• end with the sentence, “Visit presscouncil.org.zafor the full finding”;
• be published with the logo of the Press Council; 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 [email protected]

Tyrone August

Deputy Press Ombud

23 May 2025

[1] See https://www.presscouncil.org.za/2022/06/07/appeal-hearing-decision-news24-vs-conrad-gallagher/

[2] https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201802/landauditreport13feb2018.pdf