On Saturday 19 November 2022, Sam Sole, Managing Partner at Amabhungane- an investigative journalism newsroom, published an article titled, "Investigation into how Siyaya TV took advantage of Bakgatla Ba Kgafela's fortune.'   The same article was also published on News24. The founder of Moja Love and the creator of CAF Awards, Aubrey Tau, says the article was inaccurate and displayed a black successful business, that is not corrupt, in an unfavourable light and that Sole, had an agenda, didn't execute the necessary checks. Tau said that ii is major concern in the industry that Sole doesn't want to retire and give young blood an opportunity to investigate with super energy and be accurate in their reporting. "This is evident in the unbalanced reporting that is only supported by desk paperwork and not real evidence. He is lazy because age has caught up with him and you can't help but feel sorry for him. As a result of aging, he is reckless, forgets easily and just destroys everything he sees. Tau said that is major concern in the industry as Sole doesn't want to retire and give young blood an opportunity who can investigate with super energy and be accurate in their reporting.The serial entrepreneur maintains that Sole is bitter envious and unhappy man who is now creating fake news to be relevant.  As a firm believer in transparency, Tau openly shares emails between him and Sole.

Following the article, Tau wrote to Adriaan Basson, Editor-in-Chief of News 24 and Sam Sole.It reads:

Dear Adriaan and Sam,

I hope this email find you in good spirit.  We submit this complaint against your digital publication for a false and defamatory news article published on Saturday 19 November 2022 on your digital online (platform). 

Sub Section 1.2 which states that the media shall, "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'. In the news story, Siyaya TV were described as having, "TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BAKGATLA''. 

 The Siyaya founders are pragmatic, logical, risk-averse and commercially savvy individuals, including entities. Siyaya is not a non-profit media organisation and accordingly delivers return on investments to its shareholders and will continue to do so including reaching greater frontiers with its record-breaking ratings.

 We would to know what do you mean by saying that we took advantage of BBKSIC that had their board and the CEO take the decision to invest and acquire shares in SiyayaTV? Maybe there is something we are not aware of that made you portray us as unscrupulous black business people that took BBKSIC for a ride. The article is written in a bad taste poorly as we believe you never put more time to investigate any allegations and confirm if this investment was a wise good business.  

 That is ill-advised and arrogant and you can see that Sam thinks that he is superior than the logic and evidence on reporting that we took advantage of BBKSIC. 

Siyaya TV is a great investment making a revenue of more than R320 million (three hundred twenty million a year). BBKSIC owning 40% of that company makes it great ROI.  Any venture capitalist will tell you that to see their ROI will take at least 10 years before you see the returns. The revenue and the profit confirms that this a media giant that is now delivering great ROI on any shareholder investment. The problems in BBKSIC as the shareholder should not cloud the reporting on the great work that has been done by Siyaya TV on the ROI. 

To our knowledge, AmaBhungane and Media24 subscribe to the South African Press Code that prescribes news that is truthful, accurate, fair and balanced. We would like to draw your attention to the Code of Ethics and Conduct for South African Print and Online Media (The Code), published and accepted as a guide by almost all media houses in South Africa.

We also submit that AmaBhungane and Media24 are in violation of Section 10 of The Code, which stipulates that "Headlines, shall not mislead the public " and the HEADLINE, "SIYAYA TOOK ADVANTAGE OF BAKGATLA'' is misleading and not only a departure from the truth, but is also misleading in the extreme.

We confirm that we provided you with Siyaya's comprehensive response to what was asked prior to the publication of the article, however, we note that you have omitted to include various aspects of our response and sought to insinuate some wrongdoing on Siyaya TV 's("Siyaya') part. The journalist was given the court application and the response and the judgment. I think if he took time to read the documents he could have understood how the payments came about and also that we have been paying and this was not the first payment. It was also a courtesy from our side to alert him to all the fighting groups in the BBKSIC issue and that we are now making the next biggest payment if you read all the communication that has been submitted in court. The journalist never asked us for the proof of payments and we could have furnished him with the proof andi nvited him to meet our Head of Finance to the office and go through the payments which are confidential. The historical relationship between Kgos iPilane, BBKSIC and Siyaya TV  wasn't asked by the journalist and we could have clarified this if we were asked and given the journalist the evidence and paper trail. 

As indicated in our comprehensive response to you, a copy of which is attached for ease of reference, the following in our view, ought to have been included in the article and/or story, not only high-level but in verbatim. 

a)           Siyaya was fully operational at the time of Bakgatla entry into the shareholding. Siyaya had IP, employees and production. 

b)           Like any other start-up, Bakgatla and the other shareholders namely myself, Adv Medi Mokoena,  Dali Tambo, the late Dr Vuyo Mahlati and Ms Thandi Ramathesele advanced more than R10 million loan to Siyaya to fight to enter this dominated market and developing their own Set Top Box and research and etc. the parties agreed its terms and such terms have been complied with and Siyaya continues to fulfil its obligations in terms of the agreement. Once again, approximately,80% of the loan has been repaid. 

c)           The parties to the agreement including the responses by the Bakgatla's attorneys confirm that the repayments have been made and Siyaya continues to comply with its obligations. Please can you provide us with the proof that the payments haven't been done?

d)           Neither party in the agreement has invoked any breach of contract provisions and/or sought to litigate against the other due to non-fulfilment of the obligations. 

e)           Siyaya has not taken advantage of Bakgatla nor as alleged, appears to have used Bakgatla as an ATM. Please can you clarify your statement as this is damaging without any facts. We have given numerous opportunity to BBKSIC to exit their investment because of their in-fighting and they have decided that they want to stay as a shareholder. They were led by Mr Noah Greenhill who used to work atJSE. 

f)           Moreover, the issue relating to Bakgatla and the Administrator the court has taken a decision and we abide by the court decision. Furthermore, in a copy oft he judgment we provided you, it was clear that the Administrator was unsuccessful and had materially failed to cite Bakgatla in the application. 

g)           Siyaya continues to disrupt the television and media space and does not get involved in community disputes. Community members that are aggrieved ought to exercise their rights accordingly and in line with the Traditional Council stipulations. 

In our view, the article has not only suggested some illegality and/or wrongdoing on Siyaya's part but also may compromise further investments to Siyaya's business as we are being portrayed as unscrupulous black business people who are reckless.  Accordingly, we request that you  retract the article and correct the insinuations. Failing which, Siyaya, will exercises its rights accordingly.  We write to state that the article is injurious to the reputation of the television channel and is harmful to its commercial interests. We further state that the claims made in the article are without merit. In the circumstances, we require of  AmaBhungane and Media24 to make a HEADLINE retraction and unconditional apology for the false and damaging claims. We further demand that the offending article be removed from all of its platforms. Failure to do so in your next edition will result in action taken, without further warning to yourselves.

SOLE RESPONDS

We have considered your concerns and consulted our attorneys about the story and the issues you raise. I need to point out that nowhere do we state that Siyaya perpetrated a "swindle". We believe that the reasonable reader would understand that the story was about the circumstances under which Siyaya was able to gain access to significant financial resources, and the highly preferential terms of that financing.

 We are of the opinion that the story is entirely justifiable, both legally and ethically.These are matters of public interest that the public have a right to be informed about. That is especially so if one considers that the capital in question is intended to empower and uplift a rural community. 

 As you are aware, amaBhungane subscribes to the Press Code and, should you be dissatisfied with our decision, you are free to lodge a complaint with the Press Ombud at (https://presscouncil.org.za/Complaints). We note that the Press Ombud has the authority to order amaBhungane to retract and/or publish the apology you seek, should you be successful in any complaint you may lodge.

TAU RESPONDS

 Hi Sam 

Thank you very much for the response. We note that you have sought legal advice and further that you still stand with the contents of the article, despite our detailed responses to you. Please find the attached to confirm that we started paying BBKSIC in 2016, not when the administrator or any person requested that. We are prepared to share lot of information that will give you the answers, if there are any and now going back to your story….Please we would like to set out the below for the last time once again with a detailed response and a view of demonstrating that you ought to have afforded Siyaya the necessary opportunity to respond each and every allegations and more importantly, the courtesy to seek for more documents and/or clarification prior to publishing. 

This would have ensured that the reasonable reader is informed, not left second-guessing and more importantly, with an impression that Siyaya 'took advantage of Bakgatla as you state in your headline. In your response you stated that the story was also about ''the circumstances under which Siyaya was able to gain access to significant financial resources, and the highly preferential terms of that financing'' and you gave a bad picture about the investment, which includes comments like non-payment until the administrator coerced us and no proof of payments to back up our response. To you it was like this was a very bad investment given to these clowns and why do they deserve this investment to build an empire and create 155 jobs. It worked well and that is the bottom line and the community didn't lose their investment 

The investment is not a scary one in the business world of technology and commercial broadcasting media. it is also about the great IP driven by one of the most gifted talented entrepreneurs, who is resilient, confident in himself with high drive for work ethic. We think the story diluted the value of 40% in this business because of being obsessed with Pilane.

In our view,  Siyaya was supposed to be given an opportunity to answer all the allegations and further clarifications that you may have sought given what you refer to as the story having a 'public interest' element. In our view, the story was not about Bakgatla,  it was about Siyaya and the so-called advantage the channel took against Bakgatla.  Had the story been about Bakgatla and Kgosi Pilane ,which the bulk of it appears to have been, it is our view that the headline would not have been phrased as you had done.  

We maintain that the headline including the content gives any reasonable reader an impression and further suggests some unfortunate conclusions against Siyaya and portrays Siyaya as exploiters of the community. The headline is clear ''Siyaya taking advantage of Bakgatla'' can only mean and/or interpreted as Siyaya having exploited Bakgatla and the community for its own benefit. means ''exploitation for one's own benefit''. 

In our view, you/the paper were questioning Siyaya's business model. An example of this is your reference to the money and payment relating to the Bafana- Bafana rights.You insinuate that the channel did not launch or take off. This is incorrect, Siyaya has like eNCA, launched on a Multichoice platform, and not only having launched but also exploring and implementing smart and innovative ways of ensuring greater ROI to our shareholders. Siyaya owns its own content and everything on air. This is not strange, it is business and normal in such industries.Furthermore, as you would appreciate with any rights and/or acquisition thereof, it is not as simple as you state in your article. There is a bidding process involved, stakeholders and possible investors and ultimately, a decision to grant rights or otherwise is then made, not by Siyaya but the holder of those rights. In our view, and as stated in previous responses, an investment in Siyaya was at the time, an excellent investment and continues to be one given the great ROI Siyaya yields for its shareholders. 

Insofar as your point and mention of exploitation is concerned, BBKSIC has not invoked any breach of contract clauses nor has it stated that the loan has not been paid and/or not being serviced. Contrary to the views expressed in your article,BBKSIC continues to derive great ROI from this transaction for the benefit of the community. Their share worth 40% of their investment now sits at approximately over R225 million. This cannot be seen to be exploitation but rather a savvy investment that was made for the benefit of the BBKSIC community. The ROI in respect of BBKSIC is nearly at 70% more than the investment amount compared to venture capitalist 25% ROI which is average. The evaluation of Siyaya, as well, is quite profitable and continues to present a lucrative opportunity for would-be investors and derives greater ROI for its shareholders. The current loan which to date is less than R29 million will be paid by no later than end of April 2023 and this was told to the journalist.This is another indication that there is no exploitation that you refer to. The report give bad impression about our business model and portrays us as exploiters, when it comes to investment.

 Finally, we still maintain that the article has portrayed Siyaya in bad light as any reasonable reader could interpret it as us not paying the loan, which is a fundamental thing in business. The ethos of the great genius entrepreneur is to understand the market place they are in, read every day, do the research, educate themselves and put a strategy on how to be ahead of their competition and be able to see the next step, the future and move forward to make great ROI for their shareholders. I think it is the same thing with the great investigative journalist, who won't only concentrate on one question '' highly preferential terms of that financing''? A great journalist will also ask lot of questions like was this a great investment that deserves that type of terms you refer as preferential? what are the benefits to the investor? Who were the Angel investors? and check if this investment did work and what was the history of this project. 

It is also incorrect that Siyaya started paying the loan when the Administrator addressed a letter to it. In this regard and for completeness, and had you enquired, we would have furnished you with proof thereof. We attach proof of payment that Siyaya made as early as 2016. Had Siyaya not paid the loan, BBKSIC would have amongst other things, sued Siyaya and/or liquidated it especially given the amount referred to. We did not only engage Bakgatla to be possible investors in Siyaya, we had other possible community investors and all these questions were not asked.

Please we would like you to reconsider your position by correcting the story. 

 Looking forward to hearing from you soon.Thank you very much Sam?

SOLE RESPONDS

Dear Aubrey,

I don't want to enter into a debate with you. I attach copies of the letter and reconciliation that we understand was prepared by your own lawyers, as well as the original loan agreement that informed our article.I think they speak for themselves in relation to the loan and repayment history. 

 Best wishes

Sam

TAU RESPONDS:

 Hi Sam

What got you so upset and you are now bullying the facts? But the attached doesn't support your headline. It is a FALSE headline you are running with. I tried to reason with you and as you said there was no proof of payment and now that it suits you, you are sending me the handwritten document which are irrelevant to how you have portrayed us and going on about the launch, Bafana and etc. You wanted proof of payment from the bank, here it is now! if you read your story it means nothing.These documents are in the public domain and were supposed to guide you and come back to get clarity, ask questions and get a proof like a genius investigative journalist you are. A top investigative journalist will tick all the boxes before they write their headline and not say, "ohh! I wanted to talk about Kgosi Pilane and the loan. Everyone gets the soft loan from the banks and they pay it and there is no drama. Next time you will question us why this black gifted, smart very intelligent entrepreneur who doesn't have political cloud is making a revenue of more than R35 million a month. I am the black Koos Bekker and smart. You twisted the story to try to make a meal out of it by putting our business in a bad light and we are supposed to sue you but like I said I don't have time to fool around and be in court wasting valuable time. You explicitly said we are not paying and you also said we didn't launch and we have launched but we are on air and making HUGE cash flow numbers that will make a person envious. 

?

The bottom line Sam you portrayed as bad black business people because you want to turn your newspaper into breitbart.com by changing the narrative of the public domain documentation you have. I send you the proof of payment and you now get so upset you send anything that is in your desk just to win. I can also send you the proof of 80% paid, which you said in your news that we didn't show you while you didn't ask for it. You continued to hammer us on Bafana and you never understood the decision behind it and we are proudly the owners of the rights and we made money out of Bafana by reselling the TV rights, which are on loan. 

We will take your advice and go to ombudsman and we will also debate this in our TV channel and invite you to come and clarify your publication  to give you side of your story to our viewers. We will also be publishing the below correspondence on our news platform Zimoja so that the reader can take the decision.