Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Ronaldo Gouws vs News24

, ,

Complaint 32176

Decision on request for adjudication by the Deputy Press Ombud

Date of publication:

25 March 2025

Headline of publication:

“Adriaan Basson: An open letter to Elon Musk”

Link: https://www.news24.com/news24/opinions/columnists/adriaanbasson/adriaan-basson-an-open-letter-to-elon-musk-20250324

Author: Adriaan Basson

Particulars

  1. A complaint against the article was lodged on 25 March 2025 by Ronaldo Gouws.
  2. The complaint was sent to News24 for their response on 24 April, and they provided an initial response on 1 May. The complainant submitted a rejoinder on the next day.
  3. However, the respondents on 6 May objected to the Public Advocate’s decision to accept the complaint, for reasons which will be set out below.
  4. On the same day, the Public Advocate (PA) retracted his decision to accept the complaint.
  5. On 7 May, then, the complainant asked for the matter to be adjudicated.
  6. The respondents responded to the complainant’s request for adjudication, restating their objection to the complaint being considered. Because of some related new developments, a first response submitted on 13 May was superseded by a final version submitted on 9 June.
  7. The matter was then passed on to me, with the request only to consider whether the matter should be adjudicated or not. When a complainant insists on having a matter considered despite the Public Advocate having decided not to accept it, it is usual practice for both issues to be considered at once, both the PA’s decision as well as the merits of the case.
  8. However, I was asked to address only the question whether the matter should be considered because of particular circumstances including developments that took place after the initial complaint was made. Accordingly, I have not considered the substantive complaint, and have not seen the submissions on the merits.

The article

  1. The article that is the subject of the complaint takes the form of an open letter to the US business leader Elon Musk. It contains a brief reference to the complainant, as follows:

Lastly, the song sung by Malema in the short clip (tweeted by a man called Renaldo Gouws, who himself called for the killing of black people in a YouTube video in 2010) was found by our Supreme Court of Appeal not to constitute hate speech. You can read the judgment here.

Acceptance of the complaint

  1. The respondents objected strongly to the Public Advocate’s acceptance of the complaint, on two grounds.
  2. First, the respondents argued it had come to light that the complainant had launched a petition calling for the resignation of Basson, the writer and also the editor-in-chief of News24. This showed that the complainant was acting in bad faith, with an intention to undermine and harm the media.
  3. In fact, the complainant’s campaign was in breach of the constitutional provisions on free speech, as they amounted to agitation for the punishment of a journalist for doing work that is protected by the Constitution.
  4. Accordingly, the complaint should be viewed in the light of Section 1.6.2 of the Complaints Procedure, which says that the PA may refuse to accept a complaint if it

in his or her opinion, is fraudulent, frivolous, malicious or vexatious, prima facie falls outside the ambit of the Press Code or where there has been no prima facie breach of the Press Code …

  1. Secondly, the respondents said that the institution of proceedings against Gouws by the SA Human Rights Commission for the video meant the matter should be deferred. Section 1.7.3 of the Complaints Procedure says that proceedings must be brought to a halt if at any stage it emerges that legal proceedings are pending.  Under such circumstances, the acceptance of the complaint by the Public Advocate shall be set aside “unless it is shown that the matter complained of is not among those that the court is adjudicating”.
  2. In retracting his acceptance, the PA said he did so in terms of Section 1.6.2 as he regarded Gouws’s campaign against Basson as malicious and vexatious.
  3. On the second point, he said he believed that the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) complaint would concentrate on racist language, not on an alleged call to kill black people. However, the matter was moot as the acceptance had already been withdrawn.
  4. The complainant in response requested adjudication, arguing that his petition is not malicious but an attempt to hold Basson to account, who is a powerful media figure. He said the petition did not refer to his own case, but was a response to what he regards as a pattern of misreporting.
  5. The complainant also argued that the proceedings instituted by the SAHRC concern his use of racist speech, and did not deal with the call to kill black people.
  6. In broader terms, the complainant defended his criticism of the media as being itself protected by the free speech provisions of the Constitution.
  7. In the 9 June response that noted their continued objection to the matter being considered, the respondents repeated that Gouws’s calls for Basson to resign are malicious and that the complaint therefore should not be entertained.
  8. The respondents also took issue with the PA’s statement that the question of pending court proceedings is moot as he had withdrawn acceptance for the first reason. In fact, they said, both points should be taken into account.
  9. They also referred to a settlement between Gouws and the SAHRC, announced on May 14 (https://www.sahrc.org.za/index.php/sahrc-media/news-2/item/4310-media-statement-sahrc-statement-on-settlement-and-unconditional-public-apology-by-mr-renaldo-gouws), in which Gouws apologised for the language he used in the disputed video. Though the settlement ended the proceedings, it dealt with the same video and proved that the pending proceedings had led him to apologise. Accordingly, Section 1.7.2 remained relevant, and provided an additional reason why the matter should not be entertained.

Discussion: malicious complaint

  1. The respondents take strong offence at the complainant’s petition and campaign against Basson, construing it as malicious and an infringement of Section 16 of the Constitution. In their view, the action indicates that the complaint is malicious and should therefore not be entertained, as provided for in Section 1.6.2 of the Complaints Procedure.
  2. The complainant defends his actions as legitimate expression of critical views of Basson and the news organisation he leads as editor-in-chief, News24.
  3. Attacks on the media take many forms, from direct violence to legal action, repressive laws, cyber-abuse, threats and others. All are cause for concern and should be condemned in the strongest terms.
  4. However, the media must also be prepared to take criticism, even if it is robust. Much like leadership figures in other spheres of society, editors have faced sharp criticism, sometimes from their colleagues.  Campaigning for the resignation of an editor takes the matter a step further, but still remains legitimate.
  5. It should also be noted that the PA did not take the view that there was no prima facie case, which might have been an indication of malice.
  6. The complaint does not stand to be refused on the grounds that it is malicious.

Discussion: matter pending before court

  1. In a recent matter (SKG Africa and Others vs Sunday World), the Press Ombud considered the history, purpose and application of Section 1.7.3 in some detail. His reasoning, upheld on appeal, will not be repeated in full here. In summary, however, he pointed out that:
    • The Press Council process represents an alternative to lengthy and expensive litigation which serves the interests of both a complainant and the press.
    • Section 1.7 is designed to prevent so-called fishing expeditions, as well as to protect the press from having to answer to the same complaint in two different forums.
    • Accordingly, complainants are required to state that they are not currently pursuing legal action and do not intend to do so (Section 1.3.1). They retain the right to approach the courts, but if they do so the Press Council may put the complaint on hold until the court process is resolved. In practical terms, Section 1.7 provides for the Public Advocate to “defer acceptance of a complaint pending the finalisation of the pending or contemplated legal proceedings”.
    • The proceedings before the Press Council may only proceed if “it is shown that the issue complained about is not among those the court is adjudicating”.
    • In summary, the Ombud notes:

The aim of the provision in clause 7.1.3. of the Complaints Procedure cannot be limited to avoid a double adjudication for the sake of avoiding duplication. It is aimed at avoiding prejudice to subscriber members and an abuse of the Press Council’s procedures.

  1. It should be noted that the provision is formulated to deal with situations where the complainant has an option to take court action, not where action is taken against the complainant.
  2. More importantly, however, the provision only delays a Press Council process until the court proceedings are complete. The provision refers to “deferment” and to “pending” proceedings.
  3. In this case, the matter was resolved, as announced in the press statement from the SAHRC mentioned above, which came after the respondents’ objection was originally lodged. The SAHRC matter is therefore no longer pending.
  4. Some arguments were made about whether the SAHRC matter dealt with the same issues before the Press Council. The question is immaterial in the light of the argument made above.  In addition, I do not wish to go too far into the question of what was said in the video in question as it is likely to be relevant when the merits are considered.
  5. Accordingly, the Public Advocate was not obliged by the provisions of Section 7.1.3 to refuse acceptance or to halt proceedings in the light of the SAHRC matter.

Ruling

  1. The PA’s decision to reverse acceptance of the complaint is hereby set aside, as
    • The complaint has not been shown to be malicious, and
    • The court proceedings involving the complainant have been resolved.
  2. In accordance with Section 1.8 of the Press Council’s Complaints Procedures, the matter is referred back to the Public Advocate, for the process to continue as if the complaint had been accepted.

Appeal

  1. 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

Franz Krüger, Deputy Press Ombud
19 June  2025

 

Related Posts