Panyaza Lesufi VERSUS The Citizen

KASIBC_AFRICA©®™ ONLINE_EDITOR©®™

Panyaza Lesufi VERSUS The Citizen

ONLINE_EDITOR©®™

vs The Citizen

2025 (Rulings), All Rulings,

Deputy Press Ombud:

17 November 2025

Finding: Complaint 32369

Publication: The Citizen (print and online)

Date of publication: 15 October 2025

Headline: Do the right thing, Lesufi – resign

https://www.citizen.co.za/news/opinion/do-the-right-thing-lesufi-resign/

Author: Editorial Staff

Particulars

This finding is based on a written complaint by Gauteng Premier Mr Panyaza Lesufi; a written reply by Mr Trevor Stevens, Editor of The Citizen; and a written response by Mr Lesufi.

Complaint

The complainant submits that the article transgresses Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 7.2 of the Press Code.

Summary of article

1.1. The article is an opinion piece that comments on Gauteng premier Panyaza Lesufi’s decision to suspend the head of the provincial health department head, Lesiba Malotana.

1.1.1. It challenges the view that his decision may be an indication that “the wheels of justice [are] finally starting to roll on the weapons-grade looting of funds intended for patients at the ”.

1.1.2. The article goes on to state that large sums of money were also wasted on “supposed” school sanitation during Covid when Lesufi was Gauteng’s education MEC. For this reason, it questions whether he has indeed now become a crusader for justice in the province.

1.2. The article further points out that many people were involved in state capture and the looting of taxpayers’ money. Yet, despite revelations such as those before the , it asks rhetorically how many “high-level” ANC members allegedly involved have been jailed.

1.2.1. The article contends that the ANC is a master of giving the impression of taking action but states that, instead, the party allows time to “slowly soak up the anger of the people until they forget what has been done to them”.

1.2.2. As an example, it points to former ANC leader ’s use of the “” over many years to prevent him from accounting for his role in alleged arms deal corruption.

1.2.3. The article claims that the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is a powerful weapon in the hands of those who use the same money they looted to pay lawyers to construct legal obstacles.

1.2.4. It says “we” will have to wait and see what – “if anything” – will happen to people such as the suspended Malotana.

1.2.5. More importantly, the article asks, what will happen to Lesufi. It states that the looting of the Tembisa Hospital funds happened on his watch and declares that he should do the honourable thing and resign as premier.

Arguments

Panyaza Lesufi

2.1. Complaint one: The complainant objects to the following sentence in the article: “Lesufi is no stranger to questionable dealings, with hundreds of millions wasted on supposed school sanitation during Covid having happened on his watch as education MEC.”

2.1.1. He submits that this is factually incorrect and notes that the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) investigated this matter. He says it subsequently issued a report that did not find him guilty of any wrongdoing, “including oversight over the department”.

2. Complaint two: The complainant also objects to the following sentence which refers to the looting of funds at Tembisa Hospital: “This happened, again, on his watch.”

2.2.1. He maintains that this is factually incorrect. He states that corruption at Tembisa Hospital occurred and was reported around 2021, when he was neither the Premier of Gauteng nor responsible for the provincial health department.

2.3. In view of the above, he requests a retraction of the article as well as an apology

The Citizen

2.4. The respondent starts off by stating that the article in question is an editorial and that this allows the publication “considerable leeway”. In addition, it submits that the facts that the Premier disputes are open to debate.

2.5. Complaint one: The publication takes issue with Lesufi’s claim that the SIU issued a report that did not find him guilty of any wrongdoing after it investigated the school sanitation contracts that the entered into during Covid.

2.5.1. It states that the SIU does not categorically state anywhere in its report that Lesufi is not guilty of any wrongdoing or lapses in oversight.

2.5.2. In support of its claim, it refers to a SIU statement that its investigation revealed that “the procurement process conducted by the Department was manifestly unlawful”.[1]

2.5.3. The investigating unit further states that the Department paid more than R431 million to service providers in the course of “a process that was haphazard, unfair and littered with procurement irregularities”.

2.5.4. The publication notes that the SIU statement added that the Department obtained a deviation under to conduct the procurement process without inviting competitive bids on the grounds that emergency procurement was warranted.

2.5.5. According to the SIU, the request for the deviation specifically stated that the Department would appoint accredited service providers from the . However, the Department failed to comply with this requirement.

2.5.6. The investigating unit points out that the vast majority of the service providers appointed – 173 out of 280 – were not accredited: “On this basis alone, the SIU will argue before the Special Tribunal that the procurement process was unlawful and falls to be reviewed and set aside.”

2.5.7. The SIU adds that its investigation revealed that the procurement process was not cost-effective and that a senior official in the Department appears to have arbitrarily decided on the fees for the decontamination of schools and district offices. According to the unit, these fees “bear no relation to the work done by service providers or the cost of material used”.

2.5.8. The SIU states that it will continue its investigation into the affairs of the Department and that any evidence pointing to criminal conduct will be referred to the , the and the for further action.

2.5.9. The respondent submits that subsequent reports by the SIU did not specifically say that the Premier was cleared and maintains that “the words of the SIU make it clear that there was either malfeasance or incompetence in the education department in awarding these tenders”.

2.5.10. The publication therefore contends that the following sentence in its article is substantially correct: “Lesufi is no stranger to questionable dealings, with hundreds of millions wasted on supposed school sanitation during Covid having happened on his watch as education MEC.”

2.5.11. It further argues that, whether or not Lesufi was charged – “and we specifically did not impute criminal conduct to him” – the events in question occurred on his watch.

2.5.12. It believes that, as the political head of the education department during a national crisis, it was Lesufi’s responsibility to be on top of what was happening. It therefore stands by its assertion that he should have resigned.

2.6. Complaint two: The respondent then addresses Lesufi’s objection to its claim that the Tembisa Hospital corruption took place on his watch on the grounds that it occurred around 2021 when he was not the Premier nor was he responsible for Gauteng’s Department of Health.

2.6.1. The publication acknowledges that he is technically correct. However, it says, Lesufi only decided “very late in the process” to suspend Malotana despite the fact that there were ongoing investigations into events at the hospital when he was Premier.

2.6.2. It adds that Lesufi made this decision only after the SIU revelations and after he had repeatedly ignored calls from opposition parties to remove Malotana as head of the provincial health department.

2.6.3. The publication maintains that, whether as MEC or as Premier, Lesufi “stood idly by, watching as corruption and malfeasance evolved on his watch”.

2.6.4. It argues that, in the case of the Tembisa Hospital looting, he cannot claim that he was unaware of what was going on in light of the extensive media coverage of the murder of Babita Deokaran and the SIU probe into the looting of Tembisa Hospital.

2.6.5. The publication argues that its call on the Premier to resign is more than justified. At the very least, it says, Lesufi failed in his duty both as MEC and as Premier.

Panyaza Lesufi

2.7. The complainant again submits that the article contains factually incorrect and misleading statements that defame him without any basis, and is therefore in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 7.2 of the Press Code.

2.7.1. Regarding Clause 1.1, he reiterates that the SIU’s investigation into the school sanitation contracts did not find him guilty of any wrongdoing or lack of oversight.

2.7.2. With regard to Clause 1.2, he submits that the article omits important context such as the timeline of the Tembisa Hospital scandal. He states that this took place around 2021, when he was not Premier nor responsible for Gauteng’s Department of Health.

2.7.3. He further submits that the commentary in the article does not meet the threshold required by Clause 7.2 as it relies on accusations not based on the SIU’s findings nor on “accurate timelines”.

2.8. Complaint one: The complainant repeats his claim that the sentence “Lesufi is no stranger to questionable dealings, with hundreds of millions wasted on supposed school sanitation during Covid having happened on his watch as education MEC” is factually incorrect.

2.8.1. He submits that the SIU conducted a thorough investigation into the money spent on school decontamination when he served as Gauteng MEC for Education during the Covid period. He states that the SIU issued reports that did not find him guilty of any wrongdoing, including any failures in oversight.

2.8.2. He says that the SIU’s findings focused on irregularities in the accreditation of service providers and on procurement processes, and that it implicated certain officials and companies. However, he states, the investigating unit did not attribute any personal culpability or negligence to him.

2.8.3. He adds that he consistently supported transparency and even stated publicly that action should be taken against anyone, including himself, if evidence was found against them: “No such evidence has been presented in official reports.”

2.9. Complaint two: The complainant dismisses the sentence “This happened, again, on his watch”, which refers to the Tembisa Hospital corruption scandal, as factually incorrect.

2.9.1. He again says that the corruption at the hospital occurred and was reported around 2021. He notes that he was not Premier of Gauteng at the time and not responsible for the provincial health department.

2.9.2. He submits that attributing the hospital scandal to his “watch” distorts the timeline and his roles in government.

2.10. The complainant further submits that the two statements in question present unsubstantiated implications of his involvement in “questionable dealings” and “waste”, and ignores SIU findings that cleared him of wrongdoing. “This lacks truthfulness and accuracy,” he contends, and is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.

2.10.1. He reiterates his view that the SIU reports highlight procurement issues but does not pronounce that he is personally guilty. He again states that the timeline confirms that the Tembisa Hospital events took place in 2021 – “not under my premiership”.

2.11. The complainant claims that the article omits critical context such as the precise timeline of the Tembisa Hospital scandal and that the SIU did not implicate him. He believes that these material omissions result in a distorted and unbalanced portrayal.

2.11.1. Furthermore, he states, the article does not mention that he endorsed the SIU’s application for a nor does it mention his public calls for accountability.

2.12. With regard to Clause 7.2 of the Press Code, the complainant acknowledges that the topic is of public interest. However, he maintains, the commentary in the article fails to take fair account of material facts and is therefore rendered unprotected comment.

2.12.1. He believes that the commentary “appears as factual assertion rather than clear opinion, potentially with negligent disregard for accuracy”.

2.12.2. He again states that the SIU’s “non-findings” and the dates of the Tembisa Hospital corruption are material facts, but are not fairly considered in the article.

2.12.3. He acknowledges that robust commentary is essential for democracy – “but only when grounded in facts to avoid harm”. In this instance, he believes, the lack of fact-checking tips the balance towards “irresponsibility”.

2.13. In conclusion, the complainant calls on the Press Ombud to sanction The Citizen and instruct it to retract the statements in question and to apologise in accordance with Clause 1.10 of the Press Code.

2.13.1. If such “reporting” is allowed, he believes, “the public space will be poisoned with baseless accusations that are not rooted in facts”. He states that opinions that are baseless and denigratory cannot be allowed.

Analysis

3.1. Complaint one: The complainant submits that the sentence quoted in point 2.1 is factually incorrect (see 2.1.1 and 2.8).

3.1.1. According to him, an SIU investigation into the money spent on the decontamination of schools during Covid when he served as Gauteng MEC for Education did not find him guilty of any wrongdoing or any failures in oversight (2.1.1 and 2.8.1).

3.1.2. However, according to the respondent, the SIU does not categorically state that Lesufi is not guilty of any wrongdoing or lapses in oversight. In support of its argument, it refers to a statement issued by the SIU on 8 June 2021 (2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.9).

3.1.3. Furthermore, the publication points out that it does not specifically attribute any criminal conduct to Lesufi in its article (2.5.11).

3.1.4. This point is of critical importance: the article does not accuse Lesufi personally of any financial impropriety or criminal conduct.

3.1.5. The sentence in dispute refers, more generally, to the misappropriation of funds allocated to school sanitation in Gauteng while Lesufi was the political head of the education department in the province.

3.1.6. According to the SIU statement referred to above, a substantial amount of money – R431 million – was indeed spent improperly on the sanitation of schools and district offices in Gauteng during the Covid period (2.5.2 to 2.5.7).

3.1.7. And, based on the information in the SIU statement, it is evident that this wasteful expenditure occurred during Lesufi’s term of office as provincial education MEC.

3.1.8. For the record, Lesufi was Gauteng MEC for Education from May 2014 to October 2022.[2]

3.1.9. In light of the above, the reference to “hundreds of millions wasted on supposed school sanitation during Covid having happened on his watch as education MEC” sufficiently meets the requirements of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code regarding accuracy and context.

3.1.10. The article is therefore entitled to the protection offered to comment by Clause 7.2 of the Press Code as it “has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true”.

3.1.11. Even though the SIU did not make any specific pronouncement on Lesufi in relation to the misappropriated school sanitation funds, the publication was entitled to offer an opinion on the matter based on the information in the public domain.

3.1.12. Furthermore, the sentence in question deals with a matter of public interest (the use, or misuse, of public funds) and is clearly presented in a manner that “appears clearly to be comment”. It is also prominently flagged as Opinion” at the top of the article.

3.1.13. Based on the above, as well as for the reasons identified elsewhere under point 3.1, the sentence in question is protected comment under Clause 7.2 of the Press Code.

3.2. Complaint two: The main aspects of this complaint are that the sentence quoted in point 2.2 is factually incorrect (see points 2.2.1 and 2.9) and that the article does not provide any context (2.7.2 and 2.11).

3.2.1. The complainant states that the corruption at Tembisa Hospital occurred around 2021, whereas he was only elected to the position of Premier on 6 October 2022 and was not responsible for the provincial health department.

3.2.2. The respondent acknowledges that this timeline is technically correct, but argues that the Premier did not intervene in the matter until “very late in the process” even though there were ongoing SIU investigations into events at the hospital after he became Premier (2.6.1).

3.2.3. It also contends that Lesufi repeatedly ignored calls from opposition parties to remove Malotana as head of the Gauteng health department and only suspended him – on 14 October 2025 – after the SIU made certain revelations.

3.2.4. It is, of course, not within the ambit of the Press Ombud to make a pronouncement on whether or not there was indeed an obligation on the part of Lesufi to take action earlier against Malotana in his capacity as political head of the Gauteng government.

3.2.5. The only function of the Press Ombud is to make a determination on whether or not a publication complies with the ethical requirements spelt out in the Press Code. And, in terms of this Code, a publication is entitled to express a view on a matter as long as it meets the requirements of Clause 7.2.

3.2.6. In the complaint under review, the publication was indeed entitled to express its scepticism about whether Lesufi’s suspension of Malotana means that “the wheels of justice [are] finally starting to roll”.

3.2.7. Lesufi had already been Premier for a number of years during the SIU’s investigation into the looting of funds at Tembisa Hospital before he eventually suspended Malotana.[3]

3.2.8. The publication is not alone in being dissatisfied about what it regards as an inordinate delay in action by government in the wake of the SIU investigation. For instance, the organisation holds a similar view: “The urgency to seek prosecutions of those implicated in the [SIU] report and to hold them accountable for their actions cannot be downplayed. The South African public grows increasingly impatient and tired of the daily exposure of systemic corruption and the impunity of corrupt individuals, with seemingly little action taken against them, while government makes promises that mean nothing.”[4]

3.2.9. The publication further expresses the view in its article that “high-level” ANC members engaged in corrupt activities do not end up in prison. Instead, it comments, “[o]ur major political party is a past master at seeming to take action and allowing time to slowly soak up the anger of the people until they forget what has been done to them”.

3.2.10. In this regard, the article refers to Zuma’s so-called Stalingrad defence over many years to keep him from having to account in court for his alleged involvement in arms deal corruption.

3.2.11. The article is therefore pessimistic about the eventual outcome of Malotana’s suspension: “Cynically, one might say we have to wait and see what, if anything, happens to people like … Malotana.”

3.2.12. As required by Clause 7.2 of the Press Code, these views are based on facts that are true or reasonably true and are adequately presented in context. They therefore sufficiently meet the requirements to qualify for the protection afforded to comment.

3.2.13. However, the observation that the malfeasance at Tembisa Hospital took place on Lesufi’s watch is problematic.

3.2.14. Lesufi only assumed office as Premier in October 2022. Although the respondent acknowledges that this is correct, it attempts to justify the observation in question on other grounds (see points 2.6.1 and 2.6.3).

3.2.15. The fact of the matter, though, is that the looting of what the publication refers to as “the weapons-grade looting of funds intended for patients at the Tembisa Hospital” does indeed predate Lesufi’s term of office as Gauteng Premier.

3.2.16. Deokoran, the then acting Chief Financial Officer at Tembisa Hospital, submitted a report on 4 August 2021 about questionable payments to certain service providers between 1 April 2021 and 31 July 2021.[5] A few weeks later, on 23 August 2021, she was killed.

3.2.17. This sequence of events clearly indicates that the looting of funds at Tembisa Hospital began more than a year – at the very least – before Lesufi became premier.

3.2.18. And, for the record, the first significant increase in activity by criminal syndicates at the hospital took place from 2019/2020 to 2020/2021, according to the SIU’s investigation.[6]

3.2.19. It is therefore unfair and inaccurate to state that the looting of Tembisa Hospital funds happened on Lesufi’s watch.

3.2.20. Nor can the publication justify this observation on the grounds that he “stood idly by, watching as corruption and malfeasance evolved on his watch” (point 2.6.3).

3.2.21. As Lesufi points out, he endorsed the SIU’s application for a Presidential Proclamation on 23 January 2023 (point 2.11.1). The failure to mention his support for the SIU investigation is clearly a material omission.

3.2.22. It was this SIU application that led to Proclamation No 136 of 2023 that was published on 1 September 2023. This proclamation authorised the SIU to broaden the scope and period of its investigation.[7]

3.2.23. The publication therefore cannot argue that Lesufi did absolutely nothing about the malfeasance at Tembisa Hospital.

3.2.24. As a result, the observation that malfeasance “happened, again, on his watch” – this time at Tembisa Hospital – does not sufficiently meet the requirements of Clause 7.2 (“has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true”) and thus does not qualify for the protection afforded to comment.

3.2.25. The article is then in breach of Clause 1.1 (fairness and accuracy) and Clause 1.2 (context) with regard to this aspect of the complaint.

Finding

Complaint one: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 7.2 is dismissed for the reasons set out under point 3.1 of my Analysis.

Complaint two: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 7.2 is upheld for the reasons set out in points 3.2.13 to 3.2.25 of my Analysis.

Firstly, The Citizen is required to publish an apology in print and online for breaching Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 7.2 by disregarding the fact that the looting of funds at Tembisa Hospital predates Lesufi’s term as Premier and by omitting to note that he acted in support of the SIU’s investigation.

Secondly, the respondent should retract the following sentence: “This happened, again, on his watch.”

Thirdly, the online article should publish a note under the headline: “NOTE: The following sentence has been retracted: ‘This happened, again, on his watch.’ See Editor’s Note below, including an apology to Premier Panyaza Lesufi.” The Editor’s Note should state that the sentence in question has been retracted and should include the full apology to Lesufi as directed above.

Fourthly, the apology and the retraction should be approved by me prior to publication.

The above 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 and online on The Citizen’s landing page for 24 hours as well as on all its platforms where the article was published;

be published with a headline including the words “apology” and “Panyaza Lesufi” or “Lesufi”;

be published online on the landing page with a link to the original article;

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, , fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at Khanyim@presscouncilsa.org.za

Tyrone August

Deputy Press Ombud

17 November 2025

Search This Blog

@KASIBC_AFRICA