Matshepo More vs Daily Maverick

SUMMARY

The headline to the article in question read, PIC chief to continue Labour Court battle to defend the firing of CFO Matshepo More. It was published on 3 October 2023.

This ruling by Deputy Press Ombud Tyrone August was based on the Press Code that became effective on 30 September 2022.

 

Ms Matshepo More, who had been dismissed as the CFO of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC), complained that the article was inaccurate and biased. She added that she was not given a right of reply, and that the reportage had tarnished her reputation and dignity.

The article detailed several alleged transgressions by More. It was updated on 4 October 2023 to reflect some corrections.

Regarding the initial article, August found in favour of More in respect of her denial that:

• she had been found guilty of “dereliction of duty”;
• she had referred in her CCMA papers to any internal investigation that recommended “a lesser sanction”; and
• disciplinary action had been taken against her for signing a memorandum for the PIC to make an investment before it was approved by management.

The Deputy Ombud concluded that the reportage that the articled had impugned More’s reputation.

In respect of the revised article, August found in favour of More who denied that an advisory panel’s report had found her guilty of dereliction of duty and that, based on that report, she had been requested to leave the PIC.

August dismissed five other complaints. These were mainly about alleged incorrect statements by other parties, as reported by Daily Maverick.

It was directed to publish an apology to More for not making a concerted effort to afford her a right of reply in the initial article and ordered it to again give her a right of reply. It was also ordered to publish appropriate corrections in the revised article.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

Date of publication: 3 October 2023

Headline:

PIC chief to continue Labour Court battle to defend the firing of CFO Matshepo More

Author of article: Ray Mahlaka

Particulars

This finding is based on a written complaint by Ms Matshepo More and includes four annexures; a copy of the revised article provided on behalf of Daily Maverick by the Editor of Business Maverick, Mr Tim Cohen, in lieu of a response; a written response by Ms More to the revised article; a written response on behalf of Daily Maverick by Mr Cohen and reporter Mr Ray Mahlaka as well as a recording of a Public Investment Corporation media briefing; and a further written response by Ms More along with various documents.

Complaint

The complainant submits that the article transgresses Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.8 and 3.3 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; …

“1.8 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; …

“3. The media shall:

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

3.3.1 the facts reported are true or substantially true; or

3.3.2 the reportage amounts to protected comment based on facts that are adequately referred to and that are either true or reasonably true; or

3.3.3 the reportage amounts to a fair and accurate report of court proceedings,

Parliamentary proceedings, or the proceedings of any quasi-judicial tribunal or forum; or

3.3.4 it was reasonable for the information to be communicated because it was prepared in accordance with acceptable principles of journalistic conduct; or

3.3.5 the article was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the complainant was a party; …”

1. Summary of article[1]

1.1. According to the article, the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) is going ahead with its plan to fill the vacancy left by the dismissal of its then chief financial officer (CFO), Matshepo More, two years ago.

1.1.1. PIC CEO Abel Sithole said during its results presentation on 3 October 2023 that the asset manager is in the process of appointing a permanent CFO to replace More, who was suspended on 20 March 2019 and then dismissed on 7 October 2021. (Brian Mavuka has been acting CFO since then.)

1.2. However, More successfully challenged her dismissal at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). In September 2022, the CCMA ordered the PIC to reinstate her as CFO.

1.2.1. Sithole said at the results presentation that the PIC is challenging this ruling in the Labour Court.

1.2.2. Daily Maverick attempted to contact More for comment, but did not receive any response at the time of publication.

1.3. More was suspended on full pay after she faced disciplinary action for concluding transactions that reportedly “flouted the asset manager’s investment standards and requirements”. The questionable transactions included alleged irregularities related to the PIC’s investment in the JSE-listed company AYO Technology Solutions.

1.3.1. The PIC paid R43 a share for a 29% stake in the company ahead of AYO’s JSE listing in December 2017, for which the asset manager paid R4.3 billion. The PIC was reportedly the only investor to subscribe to shares in the company, which are now worth R3 each.

1.3.2. According to the article, the deal was mired in controversy as details of “the irregular process followed by the PIC” emerged in the media and at the judicial commission of inquiry into allegations of impropriety at the PIC chaired by retired judge Lex Mpati (now generally referred to as the Mpati Commission).

1.4. Disciplinary action was reportedly taken against More for signing a memorandum for the PIC to invest in AYO before it was approved by management and also for failing to serve the interests of the asset manager by not disclosing her actions. An independent inquiry pronounced her innocent.

1.4.1. However, the PIC board instituted another internal investigation against More and reportedly found her guilty of misconduct and dereliction of duty.

1.5. More argued in papers submitted to the CCMA that she was unfairly dismissed despite the outcome of a disciplinary hearing and internal investigation that “recommended a lesser sanction”.

1.5.1. She accused the chair of the disciplinary hearing of bias and added that the PIC terminated her employment without providing any reasons. According to her, this rendered her dismissal “inappropriate”.

1.6. The PIC – one of the few state-owned entities that is profitable – is reportedly trying “to move on” from the governance failures identified by the Mpati Commission.

1.6.1. Board chair David Masondo said that the “fruitless and wasteful expenditure of R1.6 million” that was identified in 2022 was corrected in 2023.

1.7. This article was updated on 4 October 2023 at 10.08pm  to reflect the following corrections.

1.7.1. The previous board, led by Reuel Khoza, blamed the AYO matter on More and former CEO Dan Matjila. The previous board said on numerous occasions that More and Matjila “compromised the PIC’s governance affairs by being involved in the AYO transaction”.

1.7.2. The board launched an internal investigation, which resulted in More being charged with signing a settlement memorandum before PIC officials had approved the transaction. According to the PIC’s internal investigation, she also failed to disclose at a meeting with PIC officials that the memorandum had already been signed.

1.7.3. The reporter stated that he erred in not mentioning that the Mpati Commission had found that More had served the interests of the PIC during the AYO deal as she had convened an urgent meeting with the portfolio management committee (PMC) to reconsider the AYO investment.

1.7.4. However, the Mpati Commission found that even though she had taken steps to remedy the deal, she had withheld crucial information from the PIC’s PMC regarding the asset manager’s investment in AYO.

2. Arguments

Matshepo More

2.1. In Complaint 1, the complainant submits that the Daily Maverick article published on 3 October 2023 contravenes Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 3.3 of the Press Code.

2.1.1. Firstly, More takes issue with the reference in the article that she was “…. found … guilty of misconduct and dereliction of duty” and contends that the reference to “dereliction of duty” is factually incorrect.

2.1.2. She goes on to state that her lawyers emailed a letter to Daily Maverick on 29 October 2021 in which they point out how the words in question are factually incorrect (the letter was attached as Annexure 1).

2.1.3. Despite this, she says, the publication continues to publish the words “dereliction of duty” without taking her right of reply into consideration. She suggests that the use of these words is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code and adds that the publication failed to determine exactly what she was dismissed for “even after two years”.

2.2. Secondly, More disputes the following part of the article: “In her papers submitted to the CCMA, More argued that she was unfairly dismissed despite the outcome of [a] disciplinary hearing and internal investigation…, thereby rendering the dismissal ‘inappropriate’.”

2.2.1. She submits that this is factually incorrect as she did not mention any internal investigation that recommended “a lesser section [sanction]” in her CCMA papers.

2.2.2. She adds that elementary research on the case would have revealed that the CCMA award mentions that all the investigations – both internal and external – had exonerated her. (She refers in particular to paragraph 48(2) of the CCMA award in Annexure 2.)

2.2.3. More says that she emailed the CCMA award to Daily Maverick on 4 October 2023. She believes that a cursory reading of the award would have informed the publication that the paragraph in question is factually incorrect and hence in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.

2.2.4. However, even after she provided the publication with a copy of the CCMA award, she says the updated version of the initial article did not attempt to express a balanced view but instead continues to tarnish her reputation with factually incorrect information.

2.2.5. She goes on to argue that the paragraph in question is in contravention of Clauses 1.2 and 3.3 of the Press Code as well.

2.3. Thirdly, More objects to the following part of the article: “Disciplinary action was taken against More for signing a memo for the PIC to invest in AYO before it had been approved by management, and for failing to serve the interests of the asset manager by not disclosing her actions.

“An independent inquiry later pronounced her innocent.”

2.3.1. She argues that the headline of the article creates the expectation that most of the article would concentrate on the matter before the Labour Court. Instead, the article primarily covers the AYO transaction – “a transaction which I was found not guilty [of]”.

2.3.2. She maintains that no basic research was done on her involvement in the AYO transaction by at least reading the PIC disciplinary ruling. If this had been done, she submits, the publication would have established that the continued mention of her signing a memorandum before it was approved by management is factually incorrect.

2.3.3. She argues that basic research would have established that she only confirmed “availability of funds subject to risk and ESG [Environmental, Social and Governance reports] confirming that all [is] in order” and that she was the last person to attach her signature to the memorandum after it had already been recommended and/or approved by several managers.

2.3.4. More states that she provided Daily Maverick with the PIC disciplinary ruling on 4 October 2023 (Annexure 3). However, she claims, the publication did not bother to read the ruling and instead decided to include additional factually incorrect information in the updated version of the article.

2.3.5. She maintains that paragraph 2.10.6 of the PIC disciplinary ruling clearly indicates her role in the memorandum in question.

2.3.6. She argues that the inclusion of factually incorrect information which does not provide a balanced view and not giving her the right to reply before publication of the article are in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 3.3 of the Press Code.

2.4. Fourthly, More takes exception to the following part of the article: “More was suspended two years ago on full pay, earning R6.9-million during the 2021 financial year … concluding transactions that flouted the asset manager’s investment standards and requirements.”

2.4.1. She states that Daily Maverick deemed it to be of “public interest” to report after two years that she earned R6.9 million while she was suspended in 2021. However, she finds it strange that other executives who earned more than her while on suspension in 2023 were not named, given that the “trigger” of the article was the PIC’s 2023 financial year report.

2.4.2. Instead, she says, the article provides a summary and does not mention that the PIC’s 2023 annual report states that the current chief operating officer (COO) earned R7.4 million for the 2023 financial year while on suspension.

2.4.3. In light of this omission, she contends, the article is not balanced and is in breach of Clauses 1.2 and 3.3 of the Press Code. She believes the aim of the article appears to be to tarnish her reputation rather than to report information that would be in the public interest.

2.5. More also objects to the update added to the bottom of the initial article: “The previous board, led by Reuel Khoza, has pinned the AYO matter on More and former CEO Dan Matjila. The prvious board itself has, on numerous occasions, said More and Matjila compromised the PIC’s governance affairs by being involved in the AYO transaction. The board even launched an internal investigation resulting in More being charged with signing a settlement memorandum before PIC officials had approved the transaction …

“I erred in not mentioning that the Mpati Commission found that More served in the interests of the PIC when it came to the AYO deal as she convened an urgent meeting with the portfolio management committee to reconsider the AYO investment. … she withheld crucial information from the PIC’s portfolio management committee regarding the PIC’s investment in AYO.”

2.5.1. She denies that the board led by Khoza launched the PIC’s internal investigation on the AYO transaction and submits that the investigation was only performed afterwards at her request.

2.5.2. She further submits that it is factually incorrect to state that the Mpati Commission (Annexure 4) found that she had served the interest of the PIC but that she had also withheld information.

2.5.3. She maintains that the Mpati Commission only found that she and the then CEO were grossly negligent in relation to the AYO transaction by “omission and commission”, and notes that the commission did not spell out what this referred to.

2.5.4. She adds that the PIC disciplinary ruling – issued after publication of the Mpati Commission’s report – found she was not grossly negligent and not guilty of not protecting the PIC by not disclosing the settlement memorandum signed to the PMC. (She refers to paragraphs 3.62 to 3.66 of Annexure 3 to support this claim.)

2.5.5. Even after Daily Maverick was provided with the relevant information, she submits, it failed to conduct basic research and report factually correct information in the updated article. In her view, the failure to report factually correct information that has a balanced view and does not aim to tarnish her reputation is in violation of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 3.3 of the Press Code.

2.6. In Complaint 2, More takes issue with “an alleged attempt” to obtain her views prior to publication. In her view, this alleged attempt does not meet the requirement in Clause 1.8 of the Press Code to give a respondent reasonable time to reply.

2.6.1. She submits that the event that appears to have triggered the article – the PIC press briefing on its 2022/23 annual report – took place on 3 October 2023 and that the article was published on 4 October 2023.[2] Based on these dates, she says, she was given less than 24 hours to respond to the questions allegedly sent to her.

2.6.2. She adds that she asked Daily Maverick by email on 4 October 2023 where it had sent its questions to as the article reports that she was yet to provide a response. The reporter replied that he had sent the questions to a cell phone number – a previous work number that has been inactive since April 2019.

2.6.3. Based on the above, she concedes that the questions were indeed sent. However, she argues, no attempt was made to determine whether the cell number used was still active or whether she did indeed receive the questions. In her view, sending the questions to a cell number was “just a tick box process”.

2.6.4. She further points out that her last communication to Daily Maverick – through her lawyers – was in the form of an emailed letter dated 29 October 2021 (see point 2.1.2). She believes “a reasonable person” would have used her lawyers as a point of contact or enquiry about her current contact number.

2.6.5. She further argues that Daily Maverick would have sent the questions again if it indeed wanted to give her the right to reply after she contacted it on 4 October 2023. Instead, she says, its reporter told her that her “right of reply opportunity still exists”.

2.7. In conclusion, More states that she decided to lodge a complaint with the Press Council given that Daily Maverick published articles about her for the last three years without giving her the right to reply before publication.

2.7.1. She notes that, when she provides the publication with supporting documentation to show that its reports are factually incorrect, Daily Maverick continues to ignore these documents but instead “report[s] on their own narrative which aims to tarnish my reputation”.

2.7.2. She adds that she requested the publication to provide the supporting documentation and/or recordings on which it based the article published on 3 October 2023. To date, she says, this information has not been forthcoming.

Daily Maverick

2.8. In response to the complaint, the respondent provides a copy of a revised version of the article published on 4 January 2024.

2.8.1. This revised article includes various amendments. These will not be summarised here as they are quoted at some length in the complainant’s response (see below under point 2.9).

2.8.2. In addition to the amendments, the revised article notes that the initial version fails to mention that the Mpati Commission does not implicate More in any wrongdoing in connection with the AYO transaction.

2.8.3. The revised article also acknowledges that the earlier version of the article fails to mention that a disciplinary inquiry did not find More guilty of two charges relating to gross negligence and failing to serve in the PIC’s best interests.

2.8.4. The publication states that it “regrets the errors and omissions”.

Matshepo More

2.9. In response to the revised article, the complainant submits that the publication’s “modifications” do not comply with the Press Code and that, in fact, they further infringe on her rights. In light of this, she adds a number of new complaints to her original complaint.

2.9.1. In Complaint 1, More objects to the following part of the report: “… with the previous PIC board, led by chair Reuel Khoza, saying she was subjected ‘to a number of investigations’, relating to the AYO transaction and lapses in the company’s governance structures. In a press briefing on 28 October 2021, as the term of the previous PIC board came to an end, Khoza said the board was given a report compiled by an advisory panel that found More ‘guilty of dereliction of duty’.” She also takes issue with the following sentence: “‘The board, upon very serious reflection and review, felt that in fact, the misconduct and dereliction of duty were severe enough to merit her [More] being requested to leave the organisation, which is what in fact happened,’ Khoza said at the time.”

2.9.1.1. She submits that these parts of the revised article contravene Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 3.3 of the Press Code and bring into question the processes followed by the publication to ensure that its information complies with the Press Code.

2.9.1.2. She then repeats her request in her initial complaint for a copy of the “recordings” that support the contents of the article.

2.9.1.3. More further points out that it is public knowledge that she is currently in litigation with Khoza and that she has taken him to court for defamation of character based on an article in another publication.

2.9.1.4. Given this pending litigation, she expects Daily Maverick to exercise professional scepticism when it comes to anything that Khoza allegedly says about her.

2.9.1.5. She also reiterates that she provided a copy of the CCMA’s ruling to the publication in October 2023 which exonerated her of any wrongdoing (see point 2.2.2).

2.9.1.6. She says the publication could have read this ruling and also consulted documents before the Labour Court and discovered that – contrary to a claim by Khoza –  there was no report prepared by the advisory panel at the board meeting of 7 October 2021 that decided to terminate her employment.

2.9.2. In Complaint 2, the complainant objects to the following quote in the revised article: “By both omission and commission, the two most senior executive directors of the PIC [More and Matjila] demonstrated not only their lack of credibility as witnesses, but their readiness to distance themselves from decisions taken and blame others, including the most junior staff members involved in the transaction. At no point did either acknowledge deficiencies in the process or accept either responsibility or accountability for the investment.” She complains about the following reference as well: “On More’s conduct, for example, the commission found that she did not question the valuation of R1-billion attached to AYO’s purchase of a 30% state [stake] in British Telecom South Africa from a related company within the Sekunjalo Group, Kilomix.”

2.9.2.1. More submits that these modifications are in contravention of Clauses 1.2 and 3.3 of the Press Code.

2.9.2.2. She adds that, given that the Mpati Commission’s report is currently on review, it could be expected that there would be professional scepticism and a detailed investigation of supporting information when writing an article based on this report.

2.9.2.3. She further submits that Daily Maverick should have questioned why the Mpati report identifies her as the sole person responsible for questioning a valuation when she was one of 10 people present at a meeting and when each of them had “similar authority”.

2.9.2.4. She maintains that, if the publication had given her the right of reply before the initial article was published, she would have provided it with an email which shows how she questioned the accuracy of the Mpati report on the grounds that certain information she had provided was not taken into account when the report was published. As an example, she includes an email to Mpati Commission evidence leader Jannie Lubbe in which she questions the accuracy of its report.

2.9.2.5. She also questions why the PIC did not ask for a review of the Mpati Commission’s finding that she was not guilty in relation to the AYO transaction.

2.9.3. In Complaint 3, the complainant refers to the following in the revised article: “The hearing found that More did not disclose information to the portfolio management committee on listed investment (of which she was a member as a CFO) at its meeting on 20 December 2017 that a settlement memorandum on the AYO transaction had already been signed.”

2.9.3.1. More contends that this modification contravenes Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code.

2.9.3.2. She again points out that she provided the outcome of the PIC disciplinary hearing to Daily Maverick and therefore expected the publication to adhere to the Press Code when reporting on the hearing.

2.9.3.3. She states that the reference in the article in point 2.9.3 above relates to a charge and not to a finding of the hearing.

2.9.4. In Complaint 4,[3] the complainant takes issue with the following in the revised article and suggests that it contravenes Clause 1.1 of the Press Code: “Despite being cleared of wrongdoing, the PIC insisted on not reinstating More in her position. More approached the CCMA …

“In her response to Daily Maverick, More said her CCMA award indicated that ‘it is unknown what was utilised [by the PIC] to charge’ her as ‘there was no investigation report which recommended that’ she be charged.”

2.9.4.1. More reiterates that she never provided any response to Daily Maverick. Instead, she submits, she informed the publication that the article it published was factually incorrect and requested it to retract all factually incorrect information.

2.9.4.2. She further argues that it is unclear to which question she was allegedly responding as she was never sent any questions. She adds that she fails to understand how Daily Maverick can conclude that her complaint to the Press Ombuds amounts to providing a response.

2.9.5. In Complaint 5, the complainant again objects to the following quote in the revised article: “By both omission and commission, the two most senior executive directors of the PIC [More and Matjila] demonstrated not only their lack of credibility as witnesses, but their readiness to distance themselves from decisions taken and blame others, including the most junior staff members involved in the transaction. At no point did either acknowledge deficiencies in the process or accept either responsibility or accountability for the investment.” More also objects to the following sentence: “The settlement, which would pave the way for the PIC to pay R4.3-billion for AYO shares, was signed a day before the PMC meeting was held.  The hearing also found that it was Matjila (the then PIC CEO) and not More who had the powers to authorise/approve the payment required for the AYO transaction.

2.9.5.1. She suggests that these modifications are in contravention of Clauses 1.2 and 3.3.

2.9.5.2. She further points out that the PIC ruling states that Mavuka – who released the payment – always held the view that PMC approval was required before payment could be made but that, in this instance, he nevertheless made the payment.

2.9.5.3. She claims that the revised article failed to include the reference in the ruling to Mavuka’s involvement in the AYO transaction yet deemed it appropriate to include what the report says about Matjila.

2.9.5.4. She submits that, in so doing, the publication is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code. She suggests that it is “trying to create and/or maintain the inaccurate narrative” that she and Matjila are at the centre of the AYO transaction.

2.9.5.5. She contends that the publication deliberately did not provide a balanced view in the revised article. If it had included Mavuka’s involvement in the AYO transaction, she argues, it would have shown that the allegation in the Mpati Commission’s report that she and Matjila were trying to place the blame on junior staff is factually incorrect.

2.9.5.6. She points out that Mavuka was not a junior member of staff, but “a prescribed officer” and is currently Acting CFO of the PIC.

2.10. In conclusion, the complainant states that the publication did not take the necessary steps after she contacted it in October 2023 to ensure that it modifies the article to make sure it complies with Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 3.3 of the Press Code.

2.10.1. More also claims that some attempts were made to modify the article only after she complained to the Press Council. However, she submits, these attempts are in contravention of the Press Code as well.

2.10.2. She further suggests that Daily Maverick promoted the initial version of the article to ensure it is read “by all that could have access to it”. The updated article was not similarly promoted, she says, and will therefore not attract the attention of those who read the previous version.

2.10.3. She notes that she emailed various reports to the publication to prove that the article was not truthful, accurate and fair. To date, she argues, this information has not been considered to ensure the publication presents a balanced view in line with Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

2.10.4. She contends that the revised article continues to tarnish her reputation (in breach of Clause 3.3 of the Press Code), does not present information that is truthful, accurate and fair (in breach of Clause 1.1) and is not presented in a balanced manner (in breach of Clause 1.2).

2.10.5. In light of the above, she repeats her request for the publication to withdraw its article and publish an apology.

Daily Maverick

2.11. In the respondent’s reply to Complaint 1 about the revised article, it states that the complainant’s initial complaint to the publication takes umbrage at the reference to investigations initiated against her by the PIC board led by Khoza.

2.11.1. It notes that More also requested further clarity on Khoza’s statements and repeated her request for a recording or recordings of a PIC media briefing on 28 October 2021. During this briefing, he claimed that she was being subjected to a “number of investigations” about her conduct.

2.11.2. Daily Maverick argues that the revised article provides further clarity on Khoza’s claims and quotes his comments verbatim during the media briefing.

2.11.3. The publication adds that it is already in the public domain that Khoza claimed that More faced investigations relating to the AYO transaction and to lapses in the company’s governance structures. In support of this argument, it cites a News24 article and a Bloomberg article republished by Business Day.

2.11.4. In response to More’s complaint, Daily Maverick also includes a recording of the media briefing on 28 October 2021 in which certain claims were made by Khoza.

2.11.5. It adds that the inclusion of Khoza’s comments in the revised article serves to give more clarity on the investigations against More.

2.11.6. It maintains that Khoza’s comments are relevant to the status of More’s employmet at the PIC and the subsequent termination of her employment. It further states that, as the erstwhile PIC board chair, he was the custodian of the company and its governance affairs.

2.11.7. The publication adds that it is not a party to the litigation between Khoza and More, and that the ongoing dispute between them was “not a matter of interest or focus” of the article that More took umbrage at and that formed the basis of her complaint to the Press Council.

2.11.8. In addition, it notes that More’s litigation against Khoza was initiated long after Daily Maverick published the initial article on 3 October 2023. To its knowledge, More initiated court proceedings on 21 November 2023.  At the time of writing the original article, the court proceedings would therefore not have been a factor for consideration in the article.

2.12. With regard to More’s award at the CCMA, the respondent points out that this was mentioned in the initial version of its article and expanded on in the revised version.

2.12.1. It further submits that the complainant’s views on the CCMA award were included in the revised article as follows: “In her response to Daily Maverick, More said her CCMA award indicated that ‘it is unknown what was utilised [by the PIC] to charge’ her as ‘there was no investigation report which recommended that’ she be charged.  

“She claimed that the PIC terminated her employment without providing reasons, thereby rendering the dismissal ‘inappropriate’ and ‘procedurally unfair’.”

2.12.2. The publication believes that the CCMA’s findings were adequately reflected in the initial article as well as in the revised version. In addition, More’s views on the CCMA award were included to serve as “a right of reply remedy”.

2.13. In its response to Complaint 2, the respondent submits that the complainant’s initial complaint to the Press Council pointed Daily Maverick to the findings of the Mpati Commission and referred to excerpts relating to her conduct.

2.13.1. It notes that More stated in her initial complaint: “The Mpati Commission report only found that myself and the then CEO were grossly negligent in relation to the Ayo transaction by both ‘omission and commission’. It did not detail exactly what omission and commission it was referring to.”

2.13.2. The publication notes that this finding by the Mpati Commission was included in the revised version of its article, “which sought to offer … More further remedy”.

2.13.3. The revised article quotes from the commission’s report: “By both omission and commission, the two most senior executive directors of the PIC [More and Matjila] demonstrated not only their lack of credibility as witnesses, but their readiness to distance themselves from decisions taken and blame others, including the most junior staff members involved in the transaction. At no point did either acknowledge deficiencies in the process or accept either responsibility or accountability for the investment.”

2.13.4. The publication submits that More complains about the revised version of the article on the findings of the Mpati Commission – “the same findings she used in her initial complaint to the Press Ombudsman to demonstrate the findings regarding her professional conduct at the Public Investment Corporation”.

2.13.5. The publication goes on to argue that the article was “corrected/amended” in accordance with More’s initial complaint to the Press Council.

2.13.6. It also states that the Mpati Commission was instituted by President Cyril Ramaphosa and that, even though there have been court challenges to its findings, no court process has yet set aside these findings or questioned their validity. Accordingly, they remain a reliable source of information to understand events at the PIC when More was an executive there.

2.13.7. The publication further declares that it is not its place to interfere with the Mpati Commission’s findings or to “engage in a process to tamper with its findings”.

2.14. With regard to Complaint 3, the respondent notes that the complainant takes umbrage at the wording of the following sentence in the revised article: “The hearing found that More did not disclose information to the portfolio management committee on listed investment (of which she was a member as a CFO) at its meeting on 20 December 2017 that a settlement memorandum on the AYO transaction had already been signed.”

2.14.1. The publication contends that More is aggrieved by the inference that “the court” – presumably it meant disciplinary hearing – made this finding when, according to More, it was merely one of the charges she faced during her PIC disciplinary hearing.

2.14.2. It refers to paragraph 3.25 of the ruling issued in More’s disciplinary hearing: “Whilst it is correct that the employee did not disclose to the PMC meeting held on 20 December 2017 that the settlement memorandum had already been signed, the PIC did not lead any evidence to show why this disclosure was required and why the non-disclosure constitutes misconduct. [Lufuno] Nemagovhani [PIC head of internal audit] was led to say that the disclosure could have led the PMC to take a different approach. This, however, does not mean that the employee is guilty of misconduct.”

2.14.3. The publication suggests that this aspect of its article – which has aggrieved More – is a common fact or finding accepted by the disciplinary hearing and is even repeated in its ruling. It contends that this paragraph merely cites what is already contained in the ruling.

2.15. In response to Complaint 4, the respondent submits that it attempted to give a right of reply to the complainant “when the initial version of the article was in the process of being produced”. However, it used a number no longer used by More, with the result that her views were not reflected in the article published on 3 October 2023.

2.15.1. When More informed the publication that this number was no longer in use, the reporter offered her an opportunity to exercise her right of reply in an email dated 4 October 2023.

2.15.2. The publication says it used More’s detailed response to this email to reflect her views and to remedy any lapses in the requirement to offer a right of reply. It maintains that it is normal practice for media outlets to leave the opportunity open for a right of reply after publication of an article.

2.16. With regard to Complaint 5, the respondent states that its initial article was premised on the PIC’s “soured relationship” with More and adds that it was anchored on the PIC’s views following More’s CCMA award, which required the company to reinstate her.

2.16.1. At the PIC media briefing on 3 October 2023, the reporter asked the company’s management about its relationship with More following the CCMA award. Through Sithole, the PIC confirmed that it planned to challenge the award.

2.16.2. The publication argues that this was the central focus of its article. As such, it did not ask questions about Mavuka or any other suspended PIC executives. It argues that the adverse findings against Mavuka are therefore not relevant to its article.

2.17. In response to the remedy requested by the complainant, the respondent contends that it took immediate and necessary steps to correct the initial article, “which contained several inaccuracies”, and offered her a right of reply.

2.17.1. It argues that amendments and corrections were explicitly stated in the headline of the revised article (it included the word “corrected”) and an editor’s note was added below the article (see points 2.8.2 to 2.8.4).

2.17.2. The publication regards the request to withdraw the article as unreasonable and reiterates that it was premised on the PIC’s “soured relationship” with More, its plans to appoint a permanent CFO to replace her and its challenge to her CCMA award.

2.17.3. In conclusion, the publication states that the matter is relevant and newsworthy in that More’s dispute with the PIC is ongoing and adds that the matter is also in the public interest because the PIC is a state-owned enterprise.

Matshepo More

2.18. In response to the respondent’s reply to Complaint 1 about the revised article, the complainant provides an outline of the sequence of events.

2.18.1. More starts off with the comments attributed to Khoza in the revised article and again points out that her attorneys wrote to Daily Maverick and other media houses on 29 October 2021 to inform them that the information that was reportedly provided by Khoza during a media briefing on her dismissal was factually incorrect (she includes copies of two letters).

2.18.2. She states that once she informed other media houses that the information provided by Khoza was factually incorrect, they offered to grant her an opportunity to give her side of the story – unlike Daily Maverick.

2.18.3. She further says that media houses such as Media 24 no longer reported Khoza’s utterances after her lawyers flagged the factually incorrect information in his press statement. However, she states that Daily Maverick continues to report his statements even after she provided it with evidence that Khoza’s information is incorrect.

2.18.4. She goes on to argue that it is disingenuous for Daily Maverick to now refer to articles that were published in 2021 – before she informed media houses that information provided by Khoza was factually incorrect.

2.18.5. She adds that she did not complain to the Press Council in 2021 even though all the media houses breached the Press Code by not giving her the right to reply. She explains that she gave them the benefit of the doubt: they trusted Khoza’s utterances, given his position, and ignored her “constitutional right”.

2.18.6. However, given the continued disregard by Daily Maverick of factual information – and, thereby, continuing to breach the Press Code – she decided to refer the publication to the Press Council this time.

2.19. The complainant then turns to the respondent’s claim that Khoza’s utterances in 2021 are relevant to the status of her employment in 2023.

2.19.1. More points out that her CCMA award was issued on 6 September 2022 and that the PIC issued a media statement on it the following day.

2.19.2. She goes on to state that, in the 12 months from 6 September 2022 until the publication of Daily Maverick’s article on 3 October 2023, the CCMA award was available to the publication to use in its article. In her view, this award provided independent evidence that Khoza’s report during the media briefing was factually incorrect.

2.19.3. She adds that by March 2023 – six months before publication of the article in question – she had provided her answering affidavit to the Labour Court on the CCMA award. She contends that the publication could have used it to try to establish her views in case they could not get hold of her.

2.19.4. More further points out that she referred the defamation litigation against Khoza to the High Court in 2022 (case number 27321/2022) and that, by December that year, his attorneys had filed papers with the High Court.

2.19.5. She adds that Daily Maverick could have known exactly when the matter was referred to the High Court just by looking at the case number and that it is therefore incorrect to claim – as it did in its response to her complaint – that it believes she initiated court proceedings on 21 November 2023.

2.19.6. More also states that it is disingenuous for Daily Maverick to suggest that Khoza’s utterances hold more weight than the findings of the CCMA, a legal body set up by the Labour Relations Act and whose legal standing has been highlighted by the Constitutional Court in a number of cases.

2.19.7. Furthermore, she rejects the publication’s contention that it should not be expected to know about her litigation against Khoza as it is not party to it.

2.20. With regard to the revised article, the complainant states that she appreciates it that the respondent was being proactive by publishing it. However, she adds, it cannot be ignored that the revised version displays further bias if not malice.

2.20.1. More maintains that the process of referring the matter to the Press Council should not be confused as her being given the right of reply. To date, she says, she has not been sent any questions by Daily Maverick and has therefore not been afforded the right of reply (a violation of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code).

2.20.2. She says that, instead of quoting the findings of the CCMA award and attributing them to the Commissioners who made the findings, the publication chose to present these findings as her response to its questions – “[q]uestions which have never been sent to me”.

2.20.3. She believes that, if the publication truly intended to publish an unbiased and factual article which adheres to Clause 1.2 of the Press Code, it would have attributed the facts to the Commissioners and relied on their findings. Instead, it regards Khoza’s utterances as more crucial.

2.21. In response to the publication’s reply to Complaint 2, the complainant submits that it is important to understand the legal standing of the various reports as well as the sequence of events.

2.21.1. With regard to the Mpati Commission’s report, More states that it needed to look into more than one issue and would therefore not have addressed in any detail all the matters that relate to her.

2.21.2. She points out that she has filed various affidavits that highlight that the Mpati Commission appears not to comply with “the laws of this country”.

2.21.3. She argues that the Mpati Commission’s report makes recommendations and that these can be accepted or rejected. Furthermore, she maintains that these recommendations require further investigation to ensure that its findings hold up in court.

2.21.4. She notes that, after the Mpati Commission’s report was published, an independent body found that she was not guilty “of what the Mpati Report had recommended”. Given that an independent hearing subsequently found her innocent, she says, it would be expected that such information would be critical and would be relied upon.

2.21.5. However, she submits, Daily Maverick did not attempt to ensure that the initial article it published in October 2023 is balanced and includes “current information”. Instead, she argues, the publication chose to report on recommendations that were subsequently found to be invalid.

2.21.6. She argues that it is disingenuous to suggest that all the Mpati Commission’s recommendations are valid but ignore the numerous facts produced by a subsequent independent hearing that were never challenged by the PIC and that pronounced her innocent.

2.21.7. She states that Daily Maverick should always publish unbiased articles that are factual and that it should never be permitted to be selective in disclosing facts “that go against the narrative they appear to advance”.

2.22. With regard to Complaint 3, the complainant argues that a sentence that was included in the revised article fails to mention that the chairperson found that non-disclosure by her cannot be understood to mean that she is guilty of misconduct.

2.22.1. She goes on to claim that the publication suggests that “quoting part of a paragraph that supports some malicious narrative and excluding the part that shows my innocence” should be interpreted as being unbiased and factually accurate.

2.23. In relation to Complaint 4, the complainant submits that the respondent attaches a copy of its email to her to give the impression that it gave her the right of reply. However, she says, it fails to attach her response to this email.

2.23.1. She includes a copy of her email to the reporter and draws attention to the following sentence: “For the record, this email seeks to demand that Daily Maverick retract all the factually incorrect information and all reputational damage to myself.”

2.23.2. She emphasises that no part of her response to the reporter suggests that her email should be used as her response to the article. This was clear to the reporter as he never stated in the updated article that she provided a response. In light of this, it is now disingenuous for the publication to claim that she provided a response that it used to revise its article after she lodged a complaint with the Press Council.

2.24. Lastly, the complainant reiterates that the headline of the original article creates the expectation that it is about the matter before the Labour Court. Furthermore, the publication clearly states in its response to the complaint that its initial article is “anchored on the Public investment Corporation’s views following … More’s CCMA award”.

2.24.1. However, More says that if the initial article is indeed about the CCMA award, it is confusing why Khoza’s comments were included (as these were made before the CCMA award) and also why comments on the AYO transaction were included (“given that I was found not guilty”). She argues that these were irrelevant to the central focus of the article.

2.24.2. She goes on to note that the CCMA dealt with the VBS transaction as well. However, she says, most of the Daily Maverick’s initial article deals with the AYO transaction and the Mpati Commission’s report, and does not include anything on VBS.

2.24.3. She further asks why it was necessary to include Matjila’s alleged misconduct in AYO in the initial article if it was about her CCMA award. She also questions why the article ignores Mavuka’s alleged misconduct in AYO given that he is the PIC’s current CFO.

2.25. In conclusion, the complainant again submits that the revised article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 3.3 of the Press Code. She says it ignored all the available factual information that would have disputed Khoza’s comments, namely the CCMA award and documents filed at the Labour Court.

2.25.1. She adds that the article should have been about her CCMA award but, instead, it centres on AYO and on Khoza’s comments that were subsequently proven to be factually incorrect.

2.25.2. She believes it is clear that the publication did not investigate the findings on her CCMA award and the matter before the Labour Court even though all the necessary documents had been filed at the Labour Court in relation to her CCMA award by August 2023 and were therefore available for inclusion in the article.

2.25.3. She further states that many institutions, including financial institutions, rely on the information reported by credible publications such as Daily Maverick. When they get it wrong, she says, there should be consequences.

2.25.4. She therefore calls on the Press Ombuds to issue a finding on the conduct of the reporter and for the publication to be instructed to retract the article and issue an apology.

3. Analysis

3.1. The complaints about the initial article and the revised article will be dealt with separately in the order in which they were made.

3.1.1. With regard to Complaint 1 about the initial article, the complainant denies that she was found guilty of “dereliction of duty” by an internal investigation of the PIC (see point 2.1.1).

3.1.2.  The complainant’s lawyers first pointed this out to the respondent in a letter on 29 October 2021 in response to an article published by Daily Maverick the previous day.

3.1.3. This letter emphatically states that “the findings of the independent chairperson … appointed by the PIC to chair the disciplinary enquiry of our client, at no time, made mention of ‘dereliction of duty’”.

3.1.4. This statement is supported by the judgment issued by the PIC disciplinary hearing on 25 May 2020 (Annexure 3). It does not contain any reference to “dereliction of duty”.

3.1.5. Furthermore, the respondent does not challenge the veracity of this statement nor does it provide any evidence to the contrary. In light of this, the reference to “dereliction of duty” in the article is deemed to be in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.

3.1.6. Moreover, it is cause for concern that the publication continues to state this as a matter of fact in its initial article on 3 October 2023 even though it was informed two years ago that this is inaccurate.

3.2. Secondly, the complainant denies that she referred in her CCMA papers to any internal investigation that recommended “a lesser sanction” (see 2.2.1).

3.2.1. In fact, she states that she was exonerated by all investigations and notes that the CCMA confirmed this in its award in paragraph 48.2: “All investigations, both internal and external, exonerated … More” (see 2.2.2 and 2.9.1.5).

3.2.2. In this instance, too, the respondent does not challenge More’s submission nor does it provide any evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, this aspect of the article is also in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.

3.3. Thirdly, the complainant objects to the reference in the article that disciplinary action was taken against her for signing a memorandum for the PIC to invest in AYO before it was approved by management (see 2.3).

3.3.1. More argues that this is incorrect and points to paragraph 2.10.6 of the PIC disciplinary hearing on the AYO transaction, which states that she deleted the words “Approved/Not Approved” and added the following: “Funds available. Just enquire if risk should be part of this memo and ESG to recommend that all in order” (also see 2.3.3).

3.3.2. In view of the above, the reference in the article is incorrect and misrepresents More’s role in the memorandum in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code. These breaches impugn her reputation, too, in violation of Clause 3.3 of the Press Code.

3.3.3. Moreover, it is once again of concern that the publication did not address these breaches in its updated version of the initial article even after More provided it with a copy of the disciplinary hearing’s ruling on the AYO transaction.

3.4. Fourthly, the complainant objects to the reference to the amount of money she earned while on suspension whereas it did not name others who earned more than she did while they, too, were on suspension (see 2.4).

3.4.1. However, what is not in dispute is the amount of money that More earned while on suspension.

3.4.2. Furthermore, by her own admission, the article is a summary (2.4.2). As such, it cannot possibly be a comprehensive description of all the information provided at the PIC’s results presentation on 3 October 2023.

3.4.3. By its nature, a news report is a synopsis of certain selected aspects. It is up to the publication to determine which aspects it deems to be most newsworthy or in the public interest.

3.4.4. It is not for the Press Ombuds to prescribe on what considerations or factors those decisions should be based. Their role is to intervene only when there are breaches of the ethical requirements of the Press Code.

3.4.5. In this instance, there is no evidence that the omission of details of the earnings of other suspended PIC executives was based on a desire to damage More’s reputation. Any suggestion to this effect is mere supposition.

3.5. Fifthly, the complainant denies that the Mpati Commission found that she “withheld crucial information” from the PIC (2.5.2).

3.5.1. However, the Mpati Commission’s report does state in its executive summary that, at a meeting chaired by More on 20 December 2017, “none of them informed those present at the meeting that an irrevocable subscription form had already been signed, as had the disbursement memo” (my emphases), on the day before AYO’s scheduled listing on 15 December 2017.[4]

3.5.2. Even though this point is not specifically included as a finding in the Mpati Commission’s report, the executive summary does state categorically that certain information was not disclosed to the PIC by More.

3.5.3. The fact that the subsequent PIC disciplinary hearing on the AYO transaction found More not guilty of failing to disclose information on the settlement memorandum does not, in itself, nullify the Mpati Commission’s statement. The Mpati Commission is a judicial commission of enquiry duly appointed by the President and, as such, its report remains valid until set aside by a court of law.

3.5.4. Be that as it may, there is merit in the argument that the finding of the PIC disciplinary hearing that More was not guilty of withholding information on the settlement memorandum should have been included in the article published on 3 October 2023 in the interest of balance. Such a material omission is a breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.6. In Complaint 2 to the initial article, the complainant contends that the publication did not sufficiently comply with Clause 1.8 of the Press Code (2.6). More states that no attempt was made to verify that the cell number used to contact her was correct.

3.6.1. It is indeed cause for concern that the respondent only relied on one course of communication to contact More. When there was no response, it made no alternative efforts to try to reach her.

3.6.2. As former Press Ombud Johan Retief notes in the Press Council booklet Decoding the Code: Sentence by Sentence (second edition), it is an unfair practice to “[make] use of one type of communication (for example, a cell phone) when there are other mechanisms available to obtain the comment you need – never be lackadaisical, just to satisfy the minimum effort that is required from you”.[5]

3.6.3. For doing the bare minimum to contact More, the initial article is in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code. The fact that the publication subsequently offered her the right to reply is to be welcomed, but does not mitigate or excuse this breach.

3.7. With regard to the update published on 4 October 2023, the publication must be commended for adding the “correction note” on its own initiative.

3.7.1. However, this note does not sufficiently address all the complaints raised by the complainant, as indicated by the breaches outlined in my Analysis above.

3.8. With regard to the revised article published on 4 January 2023, the complainant believes the modifications do not comply with the provisions of the Press Code and that, in fact, they further infringe on her rights (see 2.9). As a result, she adds a number of new complaints to her initial complaint.

3.8.1. In Complaint 1 about the revised article, More challenges the accuracy of Khoza’s statements at a media briefing on 28 October 2021 in two respects (see 2.9.1).

3.8.1.1. In response to the first count, the respondent provides a recording of the media briefing in question, in which Khoza clearly states that there were “a number of investigations” into More in relation to the AYO transaction. In this regard, the publication was merely reporting – accurately – on what Khoza said at that media briefing.

3.8.1.2. Besides the recording of the media briefing, the accuracy of this quote is supported by a report republished in Business Day on 29 October 2021 (see 2.11.3).[6]

3.8.1.3. However, on the second count, the publication does not provide any evidence to refute More’s denial of Khoza’s claim that an advisory panel’s report had found her guilty of dereliction of duty and that, on the basis of this report, she was requested to leave the PIC at a board meeting on 7 October 2021 (2.9.1.6).

3.8.1.4. While it is not always possible to verify information immediately after a media briefing, the revised article makes reference to information provided at a media briefing that took place two years ago – more than sufficient time to verify the information.

3.8.1.5. Also, as More rightly points out, the CCMA award – which provides independent evidence about her dismissal – was made back in September 2022 already (see 2.19.1). Instead, the publication continues to rely disproportionately on Khoza’s comments at the media briefing.

3.8.1.6. In view of its failure to independently verify certain aspects of Khoza’s statements on her dismissal, the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.

3.9. In Complaint 2 about the revised article, the complainant objects to a quote from the concluding remarks of the Mpati Commission’s report and to its comment that she did not question the valuation attached to AYO’s purchase of a stake in British Telecom South Africa (see 2.9.2).[7]

3.9.1. More argues that the Mpati Commission’s report is currently under review and that she, too, has filed various affidavits questioning the commission’s compliance with the law (see 2.21.2). This is neither here nor there; until the commission’s report is set aside by a court of law, its findings remain valid.

3.9.2. Daily Maverick therefore rightly argues that, while there have been court challenges to the Mpati Commission’s findings, these have not been set aside by any court and therefore remain a credible source of information about certain events at the PIC (see 2.13.6).

3.9.3. On the second aspect of this complaint: the fact that More was only one of 10 people present at a meeting where the valuation of AYO’s stake in British Telecom-South Africa was discussed is besides the point. The fact remains – as correctly reported – that she did not question the valuation.

3.10. With regard to Complaint 3, the complainant objects to the reference in the revised article that the PIC disciplinary hearing into the AYO transaction found that she did not disclose to the PMC at a meeting on 20 December 2017 that a settlement memorandum had already been signed (see 2.9.3).

3.10.1. However, this reference is substantially accurate. Although the disciplinary hearing notes that More’s non-disclosure was of no consequence and that it does not constitute misconduct, it nevertheless states unequivocally that “it is correct that the employee did not disclose to the PMC meeting held on 20 December 2017 that the settlement memorandum had already been signed” (paragraph 3.25).[8]

3.10.2. The publication is therefore correct in its response to the complaint that it is “a common fact” that More did not disclose the information in question to the PMC meeting (as it argues in 2.14.3).

3.10.3. Furthermore, the revised article goes on to note in her favour that the PIC did not lead any evidence at the disciplinary hearing on the AYO transaction “to show why the disclosure of information (the signed settlement memorandum) by More was required and why the non-disclosure constitutes misconduct”.

3.10.4. In other words, there is limited merit in More’s argument that there is no reference in the article to the fact that the hearing found that non-disclosure cannot be understood to mean that she was guilty of misconduct.

3.11. With regard to Complaint 4, the complainant objects to being quoted in the revised article as if she is responding to a request for comment from the publication (2.9.4.1, 2.20.1 and 2.23). More reiterates that she was never approached for comment and that, instead, her complaint to the Press Council was being used as her response in the revised article.

3.11.1. While this is arguably a misguided attempt on the part of the publication to give her the right of reply, it would be harsh to sanction it for making an effort to include comment from More in its revised article.

3.11.2. Furthermore, by More’s own admission, the publication did offer her an opportunity to exercise her right of reply when she informed it on 4 October 2023 that she no longer used the number it relied on to contact her. Instead of taking up this offer, she bemoans the fact that she was never specifically sent any questions to respond to (see 2.9.4.2 and 2.20.1).

3.12. In Complaint 5, the complainant again objects to the reference in the Mpati Commission’s report to her conduct and that of Matjila as well as to the reference to the PIC’s payment of R4.3 billion for AYO shares (see 2.9.2 and 2.9.5).

3.12.1. More is aggrieved that Mavuka’s role in the transaction is omitted because she believes this creates the impression that she and Matjila were at the centre of the AYO transaction (2.9.5.4). As a result, she feels the article lacks balance and is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.12.2. As mentioned earlier in 3.4.3, it is up to the publication itself to determine which aspects of a news item it deems to be most newsworthy or in the public interest. No external party can dictate to a publication what criteria or considerations it should use in its editorial decision-making.

3.12.3. As such, the publication is entirely within its right to assert that Mavuka’s conduct and any adverse findings against him were not relevant to the article it published on 3 October 2023.

3.12.4. Instead, the publication decided to focus on the relationship between More and the PIC after her CCMA award (see 2.16) and – quite reasonably – justifies its decision on the grounds of public interest in view of the fact that the PIC is a state-owned enterprise.

3.12.5. The Press Ombuds can intervene in editorial decision-making only when there are breaches of the ethical requirements of the Press Code. In this instance, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that this is the case.

4. Finding

Initial article

The complaint that the initial article is in breach of Clause 1.1 is upheld in three respects (see the reasons set out in my Analysis under points 3.1.1 to 3.1.6, 3.2.1 to 3.2.2 and 3.3.1 to 3.3.2).

The complaint that the initial article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is upheld in two respects (for the reasons outlined in points 3.3.1 to 3.3.2 and 3.5.4 of my Analysis).

The complaint that the initial article is in breach of Clause 1.8 is upheld (see the reasons outlined in points 3.6.1 to 3.6.3 of my Analysis).

The complaint that the initial article is in breach of Clause 3.3 is upheld in one respect (for the reasons outlined in points 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of my Analysis).

Revised article

The complaint that the revised article is in breach of Clause 1.1 is upheld in one respect (see the reasons outlined under points 3.8.1.3 to 3.8.1.6 of my Analysis).

All the other complaints are dismissed (for the reasons set out in my Analysis under points 3.8.1.1 to 3.8.1.2; 3.9.1 to 3.9.3; 3.10.1 to 3.10.4; 3.11.1 to 3.11.2; and 3.12.1 to 3.12.5).

Firstly, Daily Maverick is required to publish an apology to Ms Matshepo More for not making a concerted effort to afford her the right of reply in the initial article. The headline of the apology should contain the words “apology” as well as “Matshepo More” and “PIC”, or some easily identifiable variations thereof, and the text of the apology 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 online as well as on all platforms where the article was published;
• be published at the top of the online article;
• refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
• end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”;
• be published with the logo of the Press Council; and
• be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud named below.

Secondly, to provide further redress for the breach of Clause 1.8 in the initial article, Daily Maverick must again offer More the right to reply and publish her comments in the revised article. These additions should be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud.

Thirdly, it is not necessary to publish corrections to the initial article for breaching the Press Code. These were sufficiently addressed and corrected in the revised article (with the exception of the breach of Clause 1.1 referred to in points 3.8.1.3 to 3.8.1.6) and, in addition, was accompanied by an apology for “errors and omissions”.

Fourthly, with regard to the breach of Clause 1.1 in the revised article, Daily Maverick must publish the appropriate corrections in the text of the online article or at the bottom of the article, with an indication that it was amended following a ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud. These amendments should be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud.

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

7 March 2024