Minister Sisisi Tolashe responds to the Sunday Times article titled “How Tolashe dodged probe she appointed.”

The Sunday Times article published on 10 May 2026 under the headline “How Tolashe dodged probe she appointed” is materially misleading, selectively framed, and presents as fact conclusions that are neither made nor supported by the official report on which the article relies. The article creates a narrative of personal wrongdoing, evasion and dishonesty on my part despite the report itself expressly failing to make any finding of fraud, corruption, unlawful conduct or misconduct against me. That distinction is fundamental.
 

At no point does the report conclude that I:

Equally important, the report does not recommend disciplinary action or legal proceedings against me. The article nevertheless elevates unresolved allegations, contradictory witness accounts and untested assertions into a sensationalised narrative calculated to create a public impression of guilt and political scandal. This is irresponsible and misleading.

 

The report itself repeatedly acknowledges significant evidentiary limitations and unresolved factual disputes, including:

Those limitations are expressly recorded in the report. The article, however, largely ignores them and instead presents speculative interpretations and inferential conclusions as though they constitute established fact. The article also falsely and sensationally characterises my position regarding the investigation by claiming that I “dodged” the probe or refused to cooperate. That is not what the report says.

 

The report merely records that written questions directed to me remained unanswered at the time the investigation was finalised. It does not conclude that I obstructed the investigation, evaded accountability, interfered with investigators, or acted in bad faith. The deliberate use of the phrase “dodged probe” is therefore not a factual finding contained in the report. It is an editorial construction designed to imply consciousness of guilt where no such conclusion exists.

 

The public should not be misled into confusing speculation, inference and media interpretation with formal findings. The article further omits several critical contextual facts contained in the report itself, including:

✅ that investigators acknowledged they were unable to conclusively resolve key disputes

✅ that certain allegations relied upon in the article were not tested through direct interviewswith all relevant parties;

✅ and that the report repeatedly qualifies several of its observations in cautious and inferential language rather than definitive findings. These omissions are significant because they fundamentally alter the public impression created by the article.The cumulative effect of the article is to present unresolved and contested issues as though they amount to proven misconduct. The report itself does not support that conclusion.I reject any attempt to portray me as having acted unlawfully, dishonestly or improperly.The media carries a profound responsibility to report on matters of public governance accurately, fairly and with the necessary ethical restraint demanded by responsible journalism.

 

Where reports are selective, misleading, or materially more conclusive than the underlying facts support, serious and lasting damage can be caused to the dignity, reputation and integrity of individuals who have not been found guilty of wrongdoing. Public accountability and media freedom are essential pillars of our democracy, but so too are fairness, objectivity and fidelity to the facts. Sensationalism and insinuation cannot be allowed to substitute for balanced and ethical reporting. I remain committed to lawful governance, accountability and due process.

 

Matters of governance and administration must be addressed through proper institutional and legal processes, not through selective reporting, sensationalism and media narratives that go materially beyond the findings of the report itself.The Department and relevant state institutions will continue to engage the matter through lawful and appropriate processes grounded in fact, fairness and procedural integrity.

 

ENDS