Solidarity and AfriForum vs Daily Maverick
Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August
30 April 2025
Finding: Complaint 32151 and 32153
Date of publication: 15 February 2025
Headline:
Mouthing off
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/cartoon/mouthing-off/
Cartoonist: Zapiro
Particulars
This finding is based on a written complaint on behalf of Solidarity by Mr Pieter Jordaan, its news and publicity manager, and a written complaint on behalf of AfriForum by Mr Louis Boshoff, its campaigns officer; a written reply on behalf of Daily Maverick by its Editor-in-Chief, Ms Jillian Green; and further written responses by Mr Jordaan and Mr Boshoff. Solidarity and AfriForum agreed that their complaints could be combined for adjudication.
Complaint
Solidarity submits that the cartoon transgresses Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.7 of the Press Code, while AfriForum submits that the cartoon transgresses Clause 1.1 of the Press Code:
“1. The media shall:
“1.1 take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly;
“1.2 present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarisation;
“1.3 present only what may reasonably be true as fact; opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such; …
“1.7 verify the accuracy of doubtful information, if practicable; if not, this shall be stated.”
In light of the respondent’s reply, I have taken into account Clause 7.2 as well:
“7.2 Comment or criticism is protected even if it is extreme, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it is without malice, is on a matter of public interests, has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true, and is presented in a manner that it appears clearly to be comment.”
- Description of cartoon
1.1. The first panel of the cartoon features the heading, “The boys who cried wolf”, next to portraits of Kallie Kriel of AfriForum and Dirk Hermann of Solidarity. It quotes them as saying: “ANC Govt killed Afrikaans”, “Took our land”, “No jobs for whites” and “White genocide”.
1.1.1. The second panel features a wolf – presumably United States (US) president Donald Trump – saying “… You called!”, and the word “Sanctions” written on its teeth.
- Arguments
(a) Solidarity
2.1. This complainant submits that the cartoon departs from the facts by attributing ideas or statements to its CEO, Dirk Hermann, or to the organisation he represents that were “supposedly overheard” by the US government.
2.1.1. It claims that this misrepresents Solidarity’s position on these matters even when it is presented as satire and, furthermore, that it is a malicious exaggeration. It states that Solidarity did not claim that the ANC government is responsible for “white genocide” nor that it “took our land”.
2.1.2. The complainant goes on to argue that, even if these words were meant to humorously point to Solidarity’s opposition to issues such as farm murders and land expropriation without compensation, it would remain a gross exaggeration.
2.1.3. It adds that, if Daily Maverick really believes that Solidarity’s utterances had influenced the US government to sanction South Africa, “it is important that their reports and commentary on what these utterances were remain at least reasonably truthful, factual and fair”.
2.1.4. It submits that failing to do so not only damages the reputation of Solidarity and Hermann, but can also cause serious racial tension during a time of diplomatic crisis and uncertainty for South Africans – “especially for those looking for scapegoats and those eager to vilify pressure groups” such as Solidarity and AfriForum.
2.1.5. In view of the above, the complaint calls for a retraction of the cartoon and an apology.
(b) AfriForum
2.2. This complainant objects to AfriForum being depicted as crying wolf in the US by claiming that “white genocide” is taking place in South Africa. It submits that this is factually incorrect and is therefore in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
2.2.1. In support of this claim, it points to three previous Press Council rulings:
https://presscouncil.org.za/2021/01/21/afriforum-vs-timeslive/ https://presscouncilsa.org.za/2024/12/02/afriforum-vs-Sunday-world/
2.2.2. In view of the above, the complainant requests the removal of the cartoon and a written online apology.
Daily Maverick
2.3. The respondent notes that both complainants contend that the depiction of the phrase “white genocide” in the cartoon falsely suggests that they claim that such a genocide is occurring in South Africa and is thereby in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
2.3.1. It points out that delegations from AfriForum and Solidarity visited the US early this year to seek support against “targeted violence and discriminatory policies which amounted to racial persecution affecting white farmers in South Africa”.
2.3.2. The organisations reportedly met with several individuals and groups in the US, including senior White House officials and various decision makers and opinion leaders.
2.3.3. According to the respondent, these lobbying efforts “have been linked to promoting claims made by supporters of the two organisations of ‘white genocide’ ” and led to Trump granting asylum to South Africa’s “white farming minority”.
2.3.4. The publication believes that, although the complainants deny using the term “white genocide”, certain statements and actions by their representatives suggest an implicit endorsement of this narrative that white South Africans are being targeted systematically.
2.3.5. In support of its argument, it refers to a book published by then AfriForum deputy director Ernst Roets in 2018, Kill the Boer, which apparently argues that the South African government is complicit in attacks on white farmers and characterises these attacks as a form of ethnic cleansing.
2.3.5.1. It quotes the following extract from the book: “… it could be argued that the murder of white farmers could in fact comply with the definition (of genocide), as it is particularly that ‘part’ of the larger ethnical group (see definition) that is destroyed. The latter could even be backed up with reference to claims by political leaders conflating claims about expropriating white-owned farmland in order to get them off the land with verbal attacks on Afrikaners or Boers, and the singing of songs in which violence towards that ethnic group is romanticised … There is, however, a global demand for the broadening of the definition of genocide to include other groups.”[1]
2.3.5.2. In addition, the publication cites an interview with US talk show host Tucker Carlson, in which it says Roets states that while AfriForum believes there is not a genocide in South Africa, he goes on to agree with several “genocidal references” made by Carlson.[2]
2.3.6. The respondent further notes that Trump made several statements and took actions that were in line with the concerns raised by AfriForum and Solidarity after their visit to the US, including an Executive Order on Land Expropriation and a reduction in aid to South Africa.
2.3.6.1. Trump also extended an offer of safe refuge to white farmers in South Africa in response to the threats and discrimination that they allegedly faced in this country.
2.4. The respondent further argues that the cartoon employs “metaphorical imagery to comment on public discourse”. It states that the inclusion of the phrase “white genocide” and “took our land” within the word “Wolf” is a satirical device and alludes to the idiom “crying wolf”.
2.4.1. The publication submits that “[t]his artistic expression critiques the amplification of certain narratives without substantiating specific claims to any organisation”.
2.4.1.1. It emphasises that, by its nature, satire exaggerates and distorts reality in an attempt to provoke thought and discussion.
2.4.1.2. The publication further submits that the Press Code acknowledges the role of satire and opinion in media, provided such content does not misrepresent facts.
2.4.1.3. It also contends that the cartoon is a form of protected comment which, according to Clause 7.2 of the Press Code, is permissible as long as it is based on facts that are either true or reasonably true.
2.4.1.4. It states that the satirical nature of the cartoon does not assert that the complainants officially endorse the term “white genocide” or that Kriel and Hanekom’s personal land was taken. Instead, it argues, the cartoon uses metaphorical imagery to engage in social commentary.
2.4.1.5. With regard to previous Press Council rulings that AfriForum cites, the respondent maintains that these relate to the incorrect attribution of the term “white genocide” to the organisation as well as to explicit statements in articles – and not to satirical content.
2.4.1.6. However, the publication says, the metaphorical use of the phrase in the cartoon does not constitute a factual claim about the complainants’ stance, “but rather critiques broader societal narratives”.
2.4.1.7. It believes that, in view of the satirical nature of the cartoon and its alignment with the Press Code’s provisions for protected comment, the cartoon is not in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 or 1.7 of the Press Code.
(a) Solidarity
2.5. In reply to Daily Maverick’s response, this complainant submits that the cartoon departed from “the known facts” by attributing views or statements to Hermann which neither he nor Solidarity holds, namely that a white genocide is taking place in South Africa. It adds that neither Hermann nor any representatives of the organisation expressed such views.
2.5.1. It further states that quoting from a book on farm murders by Roets (“a former AfriForum and Solidarity Movement employee”) to justify attributing these views to Solidarity and Hermann is a misrepresentation which does not hold up – “even when used metaphorically”.
2.5.1.1. It goes on to argue that this is even more so the case considering that Roets concludes in his book that farm murders do not, in fact, constitute white genocide.
2.5.2. Despite this, the complainant submits, the cartoon depicts Hermann as “crying wolf” to the US and saying that white genocide is taking place.
2.5.2.1. It contends that if Daily Maverick really believes that its utterances influenced the US government to sanction South Africa, “as the cartoon implies”, then it should at least fairly represent those utterances.
2.5.2.2. It concedes that the words “no jobs for whites” or “ANC govt killed Afrikaans” in the cartoon could “somehow, through the use of satire, be regarded as extreme exaggerated versions of Solidarity’s messaging on affirmative action or the Bela Bill”.
2.5.2.3. However, it adds, it cannot be said that the words “took our land” is an exaggeration of Solidarity’s opposition to the signing of the Land Expropriation Act, nor can this be said about the reference to “white genocide”, which it presumes to be a reference to AfriForum’s campaigns around farm murders.
2.5.2.4. The complainant maintains that Solidarity and Hermann never said or implied that land confiscation or white genocide was taking place in South Africa. To suggest this, it asserts, is damaging to its reputation and to that of Hermann.
2.5.2.5. It reiterates its view that these misrepresentations could “encourage” those who are intent on wrongfully vilifying pressure groups such as Solidarity for things it has not said or for which it is not responsible (see point 2.1.4).
2.5.2.6. In view of the above, the complainant submits that inadequate care was taken by Daily Maverick to remain truthful, accurate and fair. On the contrary, it suggests, the distortion and exaggeration used in the cartoon was intentional, negligent and unbalanced.
2.5.2.7. It contends that attributing the words or views in question to Solidarity and Hermann cannot be argued to be reasonably true or be presented as verified facts – “even when supposedly used in a satirical depiction”.
(b) AfriForum
2.6. In response to Daily Maverick’s reply, this complainant describes itself as a civil rights organisation, and declares that its members are supporters and do not in any way determine AfriForum’s policy. It says that it therefore does not become the position of AfriForum if any members promote claims of a white genocide.
2.6.1. It adds that AfriForum has not only denied that it holds the view that a white genocide is taking place in South Africa, but it has also repeatedly distanced itself from this view and requests corrections every time it is depicted as holding this view.
2.6.2. With regard to its recent visit to the US, the complainant says that it did not deviate in any way from AfriForum’s official position on farm murders and that it did not describe it as a white genocide.
2.7. The complainant then turns to the book Kill the Boer, and says that Roets presents the arguments about the use of the phrase “white genocide” and then concludes that genocide “can likely not be proven in the case of farm murders in South Africa and that it is therefore an unwise strategy to describe farm murders as a genocide”. It argues that he thus discourages the use of the phrase “white genocide”.
2.7.1. It argues that Daily Maverick wrongly cites the paragraphs in which Roets presents the arguments for farm murders being a genocide as if he had, in fact, concluded that farm murders do indeed constitute a genocide.
2.7.1.1. Furthermore, it says that even if Roets has deviated more recently from AfriForum’s position, it would not follow that a cartoon depicting Kriel and Hermann could include the phrase “white genocide” as if it is their words or that of their organisations.
2.7.1.2. It adds that AfriForum is not responsible for the words of Trump or any US government official. If Trump describes farm murders as a white genocide, it contends, this does not imply that it is AfriForum’s position.
2.8. The complainant further maintains that the use of artistic expression in the cartoon does not allow it to depict what it regards as an outright falsehood. Depicting a phrase that AfriForum has explicitly denied using cannot be described as true or reasonably true.
2.8.1. It argues that this is not a satirical exaggeration of AfriForum’s position when the organisation has frequently distanced itself from this position.
2.8.1.1. As such, it submits, the depiction of the phrase “white genocide” in that manner in the cartoon is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
- Analysis
3.1. The main objection of the complainants relates to the use of the phrase “white genocide” in the cartoon on the grounds that it is factually incorrect to attribute these words either to them or to Hermann and Kriel.
3.1.1. They deny that the two officials or any other representative of Solidarity or AfriForum ever used those words.
3.2. The respondent offers various arguments to justify the use of the phrase “white genocide” in the cartoon.
3.2.1. This includes the claim that, even though the complainants deny ever using the term “white genocide”, certain statements and actions of their representatives imply that they endorse the narrative that white South Africans are being targeted systematically.
3.3. In support of this claim, the respondent refers to the book Kill the Boer on farm murders in South Africa by Roets, who was an AfriForum official at the time of publication (see point 2.3.5).
3.3.1. However, Daily Maverick appears to misread the extract that it quotes in point 2.3.5.1. This extract is preceded by the following paragraph: “There has been particular emphasis by the UN that economic or professional groups are not and should not be covered by the definition of genocide, as this would be ‘going too far’. Also, already in 1947 the Secretariat of the UN warned that ‘protection (against genocide) is not meant to cover a professional or athletic group’. It could thus be argued that farm murders cannot constitute genocide, simply because this crime phenomenon deals particularly with members of a professional group.”
3.3.1.1. This paragraph supports the complainants’ argument that the extract in point 2.3.5.1 forms part of an outline by Roets of certain arguments about the use of the phrase “white genocide” and is not a factual statement that there is indeed “white genocide” in South Africa.
3.3.1.2. On the contrary, Roets goes on to conclude in the chapter from which the extract is taken that it is unlikely that genocide can be proven in the case of farm murders in South Africa. He therefore advises against describing farm murders as “white genocide”.[3]
3.3.1.3. The extract that the respondent cites therefore cannot reasonably be used to justify attributing the words “white genocide” to Roets.
3.3.2. Nor can Roets’s recent interview with Carlson be used to attribute these specific words to him either.
3.3.2.1. Roets explicitly states during the interview that there is no genocide taking place in South Africa. Although he believes that “There are threats of that”, he says quite unambiguously: “There’s not a genocide that’s happening in South Africa.”
3.3.2.2. The views expressed by Roets in his book and in the interview with Carlson therefore cannot be used as the basis for attributing the words “white genocide” either to him let alone to the complainants.
3.4. There is no other evidence either to substantiate a claim that the words “white genocide” can be ascribed to the complainants. This conclusion is supported by recent Press Council rulings.
3.4.1. For example, then Press Ombud Johan Retief notes in AfriForum vs Mail & Guardian: “The fact that AfriForum (rightly or wrongly) believes that white Afrikaner farmers are the victims of targeted killings and that the government’s intention to distribute land to black people points to a systematic attack on the existence of white people in South Africa, does not mean that it (therefore) propagates the idea of genocide – and neither does the belief that minorities are persecuted.”[4]
3.4.2. More recently, Retief’s successor, Pippa Green, found in AfriForum vs TimesLive: “… [T]here is no evidence that AfriForum has claimed the killing of white farmers is akin to genocide. Even if they wanted the message to be conveyed in a subliminal way, one must ask why the organisation so fiercely contests this each time it is accused of it.”[5]
3.4.3. In the absence of any evidence to support the attribution of the words “white genocide” to the complainants, these words therefore cannot be fairly and accurately attributed to them. As a result, the cartoon is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
3.5. The respondent also attempts to defend the use of the words “white genocide” in the cartoon on the grounds of the protection offered to comment by Clause 7.2 of the Press Code.
3.5.1. That a cartoon is comment is not in dispute. However, Clause 7.2 clearly states that comment is protected only if “has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true”.
3.5.1.1. As stated in point 3.4.3, the words “white genocide” cannot fairly and accurately be attributed to the complainants, and is therefore in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
3.5.1.2. In view of this breach, the cartoon forfeits the protection of the “safe harbour” offered to comment by Clause 7.2: it does not take fair account of all the material facts that are true or reasonably true.
3.6. The respondent also attempts to justify the inclusion of the words “white genocide” in the cartoon on the grounds that it is satire.
3.6.1. Zapiro has indeed displayed his mastery of the use of satire over many years and has deservedly won wide acclaim for such work.
3.6.1.1. And, as the respondent rightly notes in point 2.4.1.1, exaggeration is indeed one of the key devices used in satire. However, this does not mean that exaggeration can be used in satire in such a way that it misrepresents or alters a fact.
3.6.1.2. AfriForum, for one, has repeatedly distanced itself from characterising the murder of white farmers as genocide. To portray Kriel as uttering the words “white genocide” is therefore not simply an exaggeration for the purpose of achieving a certain effect, but an inaccurate portrayal of his views and that of his organisation.
3.6.1.3. The same applies to attributing these words to Hermann and the organisation he represents.
3.6.1.4. The use of the words “white genocide” in the cartoon therefore cannot be justified on the grounds that it is a satirical depiction of the view of the complainants. Even though exaggeration is one of the hallmarks of satire, this does not justify the depiction of an untrue statement as fact.
3.6.1.5. It is unfair and inaccurate and, as such, is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
3.6.2. The respondent further points out that satire employs metaphorical imagery and, more specifically, that the metaphorical use of the phrase “white genocide” in the cartoon does not constitute a factual claim about the stance of the complainants, but is rather a critique of broader narratives in society (see point 2.4.1.6).
3.6.2.1. It is highly debatable whether this will be obvious even to a reasonable reader of the cartoon. Instead, attributing the words “white genocide” to the complainants is likely to rather create the impression that they did indeed utter those words.
3.6.2.2. Furthermore, the argument that the satirical nature of the cartoon does not claim that the complainants officially endorse the term “white genocide” brings us back to my earlier comment – that although exaggeration is routinely employed in satire, the depiction of an untrue or unfair statement cannot be countenanced on the grounds that it is satire (see point 3.6.1.4).
3.6.2.3. To do so would be to condone a breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
3.7. In addition to objecting to the phrase “white genocide” in the cartoon, Solidarity takes issue as well with the inclusion of the words “took our land”.
3.7.1. The organisation denies that it ever said or implied that the ANC-led government “took our land” and regards these words as a gross exaggeration of its opposition to land expropriation without compensation (see points 2.1.1 and 2.5.2.3).
3.7.1.1. There is indeed an important difference between expressing opposition to the Land Expropriation Act – which was signed into law in January – and a statement declaring that the ANC government “took our land”. Failing to make such a distinction is both unfair and inaccurate.
3.7.1.2. In its response, Daily Maverick argues that the cartoon does not assert that Kriel and Hanekom’s own land was taken. Instead, it submits, the cartoon uses metaphorical imagery to engage in social commentary (point 2.4.1.4).
3.7.1.3. However, the words “took our land” cannot be justified on the grounds that the cartoon is a satirical work and uses metaphorical imagery for much the same reasons outlined in relation to the use of the words “white genocide”.
3.7.1.4. While exaggeration is indeed a distinctive characteristic of satire, it cannot be used to justify the depiction of an untrue and unfair statement in a cartoon. This would be to present a falsehood in the guise of satirical exaggeration.
3.7.1.5. Attributing the words “took our land” to the complainants is therefore in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
3.8. However, there are no grounds to support Solidarity’s claim that the cartoon is in in breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code.
3.8.1. As stated earlier, a cartoon is – by its nature – a form of commentary. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the cartoon was not clearly presented as an opinion.
3.8.1.1. What can be disputed is the facts on which that opinion is based. This aspect of the complaint has been adequately dealt with in terms of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
3.9. Solidarity also contends that the cartoon is in breach of Clause 1.2 and Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.
3.9.1. These aspects of the complaint have been adequately dealt with as well in terms of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
- Finding
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 is upheld on two counts for the reasons outlined in my Analysis. With regard to count one, see points 3.3 to 3.3.2.2, points 3.4 to 3.4.3, points 3.5.1 to 3.5.1.2 and points 3.6.1.1 to 3.6.2.3. With regard to count two, see points 3.7.1 to 3.7.1.5.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is dismissed for the reason set out in point 3.9.1 of my Analysis.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.8 to 3.8.1.1 of my Analysis.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.7 is dismissed for the reason set out in point 3.9.1 of my Analysis.
Firstly, Daily Maverick is required to retract the cartoon and to publish an apology to the complainants for breaching Clause 1.1 by incorrectly attributing the words “white genocide” to them and to Solidarity in particular for attributing the words “took our land” to it.
Secondly, the retraction and 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, on Daily Maverick’s landing page for one day and on all platforms where the cartoon was published;
- be published with a headline including the words “cartoon”, “retraction”, “apology”, “Solidarity” and “AfriForum”;
- be published with a link to the cartoon;
- 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.
Thirdly, Daily Maverick should publish a note under the headline: “NOTE: This cartoon has been retracted after a finding by the Deputy Press Ombud. See retraction and apology at [LINK]”
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 Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za
Tyrone August
Deputy Press Ombud
30 April 2025
[1] See https://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/farm-murders-and-the-question-of-genocide
[2] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqNHGXNp5m4&t=952s
[3] Roets writes: “Other than the fact that the crime of genocide does not extend to occupational or economic groups, and given that insufficient evidence exists of a coordinated campaign to destroy the group, the term genocide remains arguable. The link between hate speech against farmers and acts of violence against farmers is not sufficient to prove genocide, as the evidence that these acts of violence are an immediate consequence of the incitement that was committed remains a vague science.”
[4] See https://presscouncilsa.org.za/2018/12/06/afriforum-vs-mail-guardian/
[5] See https://presscouncilsa.org.za /2021/01/21/afriforum-vs-timeslive/