Lucie Pagé vs City Press
Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August
10 July 2025
Finding: Complaint 32134
Article 1:
Date of publication: 24 December 2024
Headline: Lucie Pagé, Canadian journalist and wife to Jay Naidoo, charged with assault
https://www.news24.com/ citypress/news/lucie-page-canadian-journalist-and-wife-to-jay-naidoo-charged-with-assault-20241224
Author: Gillian Schutte
Article 2:
Date of publication: 30 December 2024
Headline: The victim of alleged assault by Jay Naidoo’s wife fears for her life
https://www.news24.com/citypress/news/the-victim-of-alleged-assault-by-jay-naidoos-wife-fears-for-her-life-20241230
Author: Mduduzi Nonyane
Particulars
This finding is based on a written complaint by attorney Mr Rupert Candy on behalf of Ms Lucie Pagé, along with an annexure; a written reply by Mr Rapule Tabane on behalf of City Press; and a further written response by Mr Candy as well as a number of WhatsApp messages. At my request, Mr Tabane subsequently provided additional information in response to the complaint. In turn, Mr Candy provided another written response on behalf of the complainant as well as an attachment.
Complaints
Article 1: The complainant submits that the article transgresses Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.10, 2.1 and 3.3 of the Press Code. The complainant subsequently added Clause 1.8 to the complaint in her reply to the respondent’s response.
Article 2: The complainant submits that the article transgresses Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7 and 3.3 of the Press Code.
- Summary of articles
1.1. Article 1 reported that there was a violent altercation at a local shop in the Utopia Nature Estate, located in the Magaliesburg Biosphere, on 23 December 2024.
1.1.1. According to an eyewitness, a woman reportedly entered the shop and slammed a door that caused a glass pane to fall out. The same woman then allegedly proceeded to “verbally attack” the shopkeeper, Sarie Pretorius.
1.1.2. Pretorius then closed the door of the shop in an attempt to avoid disturbing holidaymakers any further. The eyewitness said the woman then lay on the floor “while making loud … sounds”.
1.2. Pretorius subsequently filed a charge of assault at Mooinooi police station and identified her alleged attacker as Lucie Pagé, an award-winning Canadian journalist who is married to former trade unionist and Cabinet Minister Jay Naidoo.
1.2.1. She confirmed the eyewitness’s account of the incident and added that it occurred in the presence of Pagé’s grandchild. When she tried to comfort the child, she said she was pushed by Pagé and fell onto the fridge door and sprained her muscles.
1.2.2. Pretorius further claimed that Pagé lunged at her 16-year-old nephew when he entered the shop and demanded to know why he was there. Pagé then allegedly started screaming that they were “against” her and her husband.
1.2.3. According to another eyewitness, Pagé was aggressive and described her conduct as “disgraceful”.
1.3. The incident occurred two nights after Naidoo celebrated his 70th birthday with a party that reportedly featured loud music and drums. This disturbed some of the estate’s owners and was allegedly in violation of Utopia’s sectional title rules of conduct.
1.3.1. According to the article, some owners had complained about the noise and reported it to security personnel. However, the report was allegedly not registered as the security officers feared repercussions from Naidoo, who chairs Utopia’s board of trustees.
1.4. The following day Pagé dismissed the legitimacy of the complaints on a community chat group and stated that the festivities were justified because it was a milestone birthday. The celebration reportedly included two two-hour sessions of traditional African drumming “to honour Jay’s contributions to the country”.
1.4.1. Angry owners believe that Pagé and Naidoo appear to think that they do not have to abide by the same rules that apply to other owners on the estate.
1.4.2. Pretorius denied Pagé’s claim that she spied on the party and said that she has a disability that does not allow her to walk far. However, she said, Pagé kept screaming at her and accused her of being a liar.
1.4.3. Pagé subsequently announced on the community chat group that there had not been an attack, but rather that there had been a heated screaming match. She further stated that she was frustrated about the lies and hate speech in the group.
1.4.4. According to the article, more than one owner described the incident as the culmination of a series of problems since Naidoo took over as chair of the board of trustees and attempted to impose his own set of rules on the estate.
1.5. After the alleged attack, Buffelspoort Security was contacted and an ambulance was called to the scene. Pretorius was reportedly treated for sprained muscles and trauma.
1.5.1. The SA Police Service was notified and a case of assault reportedly opened against Pagé at the Mooinooi police station.
1.5.2. Pretorius was also reported to be considering obtaining a protection order as she no longer feels safe in her home or shop. Her wife, Karin Botha, is the security trustee and has chosen to keep her distance from the investigation in the interests of objectivity.
1.6. Pagé reportedly did not respond to questions about her side of the events.
1.7. According to Article 2, Pretorius was living in fear after she filed charges against Pagé following “an assault” the previous week.
1.7.1. She reportedly experienced several acts of intimidation by some estate staff who are known to have personal relationships with Pagé and Naidoo. As a result, she has started the process of selling her property in order to move elsewhere.
1.8. In her response, Pagé described the matter as part of a nine-month vendetta against her and her husband.
1.8.1. Naidoo added that he was not aware of allegations of intimidation and said that “this was a smear campaign” against him and his wife.
1.9. The article repeated an eyewitness account of the alleged assault on Pretorius on 23 December 2024 (see point 1.1.2 above).
1.9.1. It added that Pagé confronted Pretorius by phone on 21 December 2024 and went to the shop two days later “to provoke Pretorius into a verbal argument about the issue”. When this failed, according to Pretorius, she was pushed by Pagé and fell against a fridge (point 1.2.1).
1.9.2. The article went on to repeat various claims made in the previous article (see points 1.3, 1.4 and 1.4.1).
1.10. Emma Sadlier Berkowitz, Pagé and Naidoo’s legal representative, said her clients have not been informed of any criminal charges and added that they would comply with any investigation and assist in whatever way they can.
1.10.1. Berkowitz emphasised that Pagé did not intimidate Pretorius in any way and that she has not had any contact or correspondence with Pretorius “or any of her associates” since the incident.
- Arguments
Lucie Pagé
The complainant submits that the allegations in the articles are in breach of several
provisions of the Press Code.
Article 1:
2.1. The complainant maintains that these allegations are completely false and that the article thereby contravenes Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
2.1.1. She states that she has not been charged with assault and that she has not been contacted by an investigating officer to provide a statement.
2.2. The complainant also contends that the news has not been presented in a balanced manner and that her comment on the alleged incident was omitted from the article. She argues that this omission constitutes an intentional or negligent misrepresentation of the facts and is in violation of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
2.2.1. She adds that the article untruthfully states that she refused to comment and says this constitutes a lie.
2.3. The complainant further submits that the article presents it as a statement of fact that she is “a violent individual” even though there is no evidence to substantiate this claim. She regards this as a breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code.
2.4. The complainant states that no attempts were made to verify the accuracy of the information in the article and adds that the publication did not “properly verify” the eyewitness statements. She views this as a breach of Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.
2.5. The complainant further notes that the author of the article is a fellow resident of the Utopia Nature Estate “and has had multiple interactions with [the complainant] in a residents’ group chat”.
2.5.1. In the circumstances, she submits, the author has a clear bias in her capacity as the author of the article and is thereby in breach of Clause 2.1 of the Press Code.
2.5.2. In support of this claim, the complainant refers to a statement that she (Pagé) submitted to the estate board (Annexure A). She says it is clear from the author’s response to her statement that she is biased against her (Annexure A).
2.5.3. As a result, she maintains, the article was not written impartially.
2.6. The complainant also submits that the publication failed to exercise due care and consideration with regard to her dignity and reputation in breach of Clause 3.3 of the Press Code. She states that the exceptions outlined in Clauses 3.3.1 to 3.3.5 do not apply.
2.6.1. She believes that the author of the article used the publication for “her own narrow, personal vendetta” against her and Naidoo.
Article 2:
The complainant submits that the allegations in the article are in breach of several provisions of the Press Code.
2.7. In particular, she dismisses as completely unfounded the allegation that suggests that she was involved in intimidating Pretorius. As a consequence, she argues, the article is in violation of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
2.8. The complainant also maintains that the publication failed to present the news in a balanced manner.
2.8.1. She states that she provided a statement to the author in which she outlined her account of the events in question. However, she says, the facts that she presented were excluded from the article.
2.8.2. She maintains that this constitutes a failure to represent “the full scope of the situation” and is a negligent departure from the truth in violation of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
2.9. The complainant submits that the allegations are presented as statements of fact despite the lack of supporting evidence and is thereby in breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code.
2.10. The complainant further submits that no attempts were made to verify the accuracy of the information in the article and contends that this is in breach of Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.
2.11. The complainant also argues that the publication failed to exercise due care and consideration with regard to her dignity and reputation. As a direct result of the false allegations in the article, she submits, her reputation was “severely impacted”.
2.11.1. She adds that her status as “a well-recognised, award-winning international journalist” has been undermined and that her standing within the community has been adversely affected as well.
2.11.2. She submits that this is a breach of Clause 3.3 of the Press Code and that the exceptions outlined in Clauses 3.3.1 to 3.3.5 do not apply in this instance.
2.12. The complainant requests that the publication be ordered to comply with Clause 1.10 and Clause 1.11 of the Press Code and that it publishes a comprehensive article on the publication’s website that acknowledges the breaches.
2.12.1. With regard to Article 1, she further requests a reprimand against the publication and the author of the article as well as a prominent retraction and apology.
2.12.2. With regard to Article 2, the complainant submits that the author of the article was previously declared a repeat offender in 2018 by the Press Council’s Appeals Panel and has not changed his behaviour.
2.12.3. She requests the Press Council to convene a hearing to address the author’s repeated
breaches.
City Press[1]
In reply, the respondent submits that the complainant failed to make a case that any breach of the Press Code occurred and contends that the complaint should therefore be dismissed.
Article 1:
2.13. With regard to Clause 1.1 of the Press Code, it rejects the complaint that the article falsely states that the complainant was charged with assault and describes this claim as misleading and inaccurate.
2.13.1. The publication maintains that the article correctly states that a police case of assault was opened against her at Mooinooi police station (CAS 444/12/2024). It argues that the phrase “charged with assault” is used in the public understanding when a criminal case is registered with the police and states that this was factually accurate at the time of publication.
2.13.2. The publication also argues that the presence of an ambulance at the scene and the medical treatment of the alleged victim further substantiates that this was not a trivial dispute but was, in fact, “a serious incident requiring police and medical intervention”.
2.13.3. It adds that the article does not claim that the complainant was convicted or found guilty and merely reports as a matter of public record that an official case was opened with police.
2.13.4. It further states that the article met “the correct standard of factual accuracy” by citing verified police records and eyewitness testimony.
2.13.5. In light of the above, it believes that the claim that the article violated Clause 1.1 of the Press Code is without foundation.
2.14. In response to the complaint that the complainant was not given a fair opportunity to respond and that her version was omitted from the article, the respondent states that the facts directly contradict this.
2.14.1. It says it sent questions to the complainant via WhatsApp on December 23 and December 24 requesting comment on the incident, and gave her a deadline to respond by 9.30am on December 24.
2.14.2. The author also phoned the complainant twice on deadline to give her a chance to give her version of events before the article was submitted for publication, However, it says, the phone was not answered.
2.14.3. The respondent adds that, after the article was published, a trustee of Utopia (Briton Selamolela) sent “a selective recording” to the publication on December 25 that omitted what it regards as crucial information on the incident. Furthermore, it says, the trustee did not indicate that he was representing the complainant.
2.14.4. The publication further states that it did not write that the complainant refused to answer and provides the following quote from the article: “Pagé did not respond to questions regarding her side of the events when approached for her perspective.”
2.14.5. The respondent submits that the Press Code does not require journalists to wait “indefinitely” for a response and believes that the author exercised due diligence in reaching out to the complainant for comment before publication.
2.14.6. In the absence of a formal response from the complainant, it says, the article included statements that she made in the Utopia community chat group.
2.14.7. It argues that it is therefore factually incorrect to claim that the article omitted the complainant’s response. Accordingly, it believes that the article does not amount to a violation of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
2.15. The respondent also denies that it made no attempt to verify its information. It says the article includes statements from eyewitnesses and that all of them independently corroborated Pretorius’s account of the incident.
2.15.1. The publication also states that the police report and medical records further substantiate the claims that an assault case was opened.
2.15.2. It adds that an audio recording provided after the fact confirms that the complainant was the primary aggressor in the confrontation: she raised her voice, screamed and made “inflammatory accusations”.
2.15.3. The publication maintains that the article was thus verified through independent sources. As a result, it says, the claim that the article violated Clause 1.7 of the Press Code is without merit.
2.16. With regard to the complaint that the author of the article has a personal vendetta against the complainant, and that her residency in the Utopia Nature Estate compromises her objectivity, the respondent submits that this argument fundamentally misunderstands journalistic ethics and the legal rights of sectional title owners.
2.16.1. Firstly, it submits that the Press Code does not prohibit journalists from reporting on issues within “their own community”. In fact, it believes, the author’s dual role as a journalist and an estate owner “enhances, rather than compromises” her responsibility to report accurately on matters of public interest in Utopia.
2.16.2. Secondly, it maintains that the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act of 2011 allows owners to raise concerns about governance issues, “including through public reporting”.
2.16.3. It adds that the author’s coverage of the incident is in accordance with her constitutional right to freedom of the Press under Section 16 of the South African Constitution.
2.16.4. As such, it says, the author’s reporting on the incident does not constitute a vendetta but is in line with “an exercise of journalistic duty in reporting on a matter of public interest, governance, and alleged misconduct”.
2.16.5. The respondent also rejects the complaint that the author used the publication and its Editor as part of her personal vendetta against the complainant and Naidoo. It describes this claim as unsubstantiated and absurd.
2.16.6. It states that the publication’s editorial decisions are made independently and that the author of the article, like all journalists, operates under editorial oversight and is required to comply with strict journalistic guidelines.
2.17. The respondent believes that the complaint to the Press Council is an attempt to intimidate a journalist for reporting on a matter of public interest. It adds that the complainant and Naidoo have repeatedly threatened to take the author to the Press Council.
2.17.1. The publication also believes that the attempt to frame its article as a “personal vendetta” is a classic SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) tactic that is often used to suppress investigative journalism.
2.17.2. However, it reiterates, Section 16 of the South African Constitution protects the freedom of the Press and the right of journalists to report on matters of public interest, “even when those reports are uncomfortable for the parties involved”.
2.18. In conclusion, the respondent submits that the complaint fails to demonstrate “any substantive violation” of the Press Code.
2.18.1. It maintains that the article reported on a serious incident involving a police case, an ambulance call and eyewitness testimony; provided the complainant with an opportunity to respond; included verified sources; and was written in accordance with journalistic standards and in the public interest.
2.18.2. In light of the above, it believes that the complaint should be dismissed as an attempt to undermine independent journalism and suppress factual reporting.
Lucie Pagé
Article 1:
2.19. In reply to City Press’s response, the complainant maintains that Article 1 contains serious factual inaccuracies and misrepresents the incident and her character. She submits that the publication’s response fails to address these issues in good faith and either ignores the substance of the complaint or relies on misleading claims to justify the article.
2.19.1. The complainant starts off by suggesting that the respondent misunderstands “the upshot” of a SLAPP and says that it generally refers to instances when a powerful party seeks to silence public participation by launching litigation, usually in the form of claims of exorbitant damages.
2.19.2. She points out that she has not launched any litigation against City Press and states that referring a complaint to the Press Council’s Ombuds is not litigation. As a result, the publication’s reliance on SLAPP should be dismissed.
2.20. The complainant goes on to acknowledge that a case was opened against her at the Mooinooi police station. However, she maintains that it is misleading to characterise it as an assault charge and says this conveys a false impression that an assault was “confirmed and substantiated”.
2.20.1. She states that she was never charged with assault and that no evidence has been presented to support the claim that such an assault took place.
2.20.2. She reiterates that she has not been contacted by police to verify or investigate any alleged harm. She has not been contacted either by police to obtain “a warning statement” and believes that this suggests that police can see little merit in the complaint against her.
2.20.3. The complainant further states that the article fails to mention that she has not seen a copy of any police report and that no medical documentation has been made available to support the version of events published. The result, she says, is one-sided and inaccurate reporting.
2.20.4. She also regards the reference to the presence of an ambulance and the mention of medical attention as evidence of a serious incident as misleading. This implies a level of violence “that was not supported by facts or documentation”.
2.20.5. The complainant further maintains that Pretorius was, in fact, the aggressor in the incident. However, she says, the article portrays Pretorius as the victim and does not acknowledge or investigate her (the complainant’s) version of events.
2.20.6. She points out that the author posted a message in a community WhatsApp group that framed the incident as an attack. She says she immediately pointed out in the same group that the altercation was purely verbal.
2.21. The complainant further asserts that the article relies heavily on accounts from individuals aligned with Pretorius and that it did not attempt to verify key facts independently or consult “impartial witnesses”.
2.21.1. She further believes that the article failed to verify the credibility and accuracy of the eyewitness accounts and argues that this is in breach of Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.
2.21.2. She says she was not asked to respond to the claims of these witnesses and her own version – shared via Selamolela – was completely ignored in the published article. Nor was her version of events conveyed in a new article, she says.
2.21.3. The complainant therefore maintains that the article did not offer a balanced view of the incident and that it ignored or omitted critical facts that were made available or that could have been obtained with minimal effort.
2.21.4. She thus believes that the failure to include “mitigating context from neutral parties” constitutes a clear breach of the Press Code.
2.22. In response to the respondent’s claim that she was given an opportunity to respond, she submits that she was given 53 minutes to respond to the WhatsApp message sent on 24 December 2024.
2.22.1. She contends that it is unreasonable to expect a response within such a limited time frame – “especially during a significant religious holiday”. She says she is a Roman Catholic and was with her family; she was therefore not in a position to respond to this demand.
2.22.2. She adds that she was experiencing a severe nervous breakdown at the time and that she communicated her reluctance to engage directly with Schutte – “given the hostile history between them” – to Selamolela, the Estate’s HR Trustee.
2.22.3. Her response was forwarded to the author of the article via Selamolela on 25 December 2024. However, the article had already been published the previous day without including her side of the story in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.
2.22.4. She states that there was no clear indication in the author’s message that the article was going to be published “imminently” nor was she given a reasonable opportunity to engage meaningfully.
2.22.5. She adds that she was unable to understand what justified the urgency in publishing an article “based on an unverified personal dispute, particularly on Christmas Eve, a time when most people are disengaged and are spending time with their loved ones”.
2.22.6. She contends that this indicates that the article had already been finalised and that the last-minute message to her was not a sincere invitation to comment. Instead, she believes, it was “a superficial attempt to claim procedural compliance”.
2.23. The complainant further points out that the media are required by Clause 1.10 of the Press Code to correct inaccurate information promptly and prominently by publishing a retraction, correction, explanation or apology on every platform where the original content appeared.
2.23.1. However, she says, the publication failed to take any steps to reflect or clarify her version of events despite receiving her response on 25 December 2024. She believes this is in breach of Clause 1.10 “and has intensified the harm caused by the original article”.
2.24. The complainant again refers to the fact that the author of the article is not only a journalist but a resident of Utopia Nature Estate as well. Furthermore, she says, the author is “a long-standing antagonist” of her husband and has publicly taken sides in the estate’s internal political disputes.
2.24.1. She traces the author’s personal conflict with Naidoo to April 2024 and says she has repeatedly targeted him in community correspondence and on social media. She believes this indicates that the author has “an emotional involvement in matters concerning Utopia Estate and its residents”.
2.24.2. In addition, according to the complainant, the author has publicly expressed hostility towards the Utopia board during Naidoo’s tenure as chairperson. In view of this, she argues, the author cannot be considered an independent reporter in this matter.
2.24.3. She says the failure of the author to disclose a significant conflict of interest or the failure of the publication to assign a neutral journalist to cover the story is in breach of Clause 2.1 of the Press Code.
2.24.4. She believes that, by allowing a journalist with a clear personal bias to report on the events in question, City Press undermined the credibility of the article and further harmed her reputation.
City Press
Article 1:
2.25. With specific regard to Clause 1.3 of the Press Code, the respondent denies that the article presents the statement that the complainant is a violent individual as a fact even though there is no evidence to substantiate this.
2.25.1. The publication further submits that it reports all the “events” as allegations of what allegedly occurred. It adds that it does not follow that the publication believes a person is violent if that person is alleged to have assaulted someone else.
2.25.2. The publication adds that there is no room for commentary in a news article and challenges the complainant to provide more specific evidence in the article that suggests otherwise.
Article 2:
2.26. In response to the complainant’s denial that she was involved in intimidating Pretorius, the publication states that the allegation came to light after a police case was opened against Pagé.
2.26.1. The publication adds that it confirmed the matter with the police. As a result, it denies that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.nnb
2.27. The respondent also rejects the claim that the article is not balanced because it excludes the complainant’s version of events.
2.27.1. The publication says the article does reflect her version of events. In addition, it states that the contents of the article were confirmed by police.
2.27.2. It therefore maintains that the article is not in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
2.28. The respondent rejects the complaint that the allegations in the article are presented as statements of fact. It maintains that the article presents the events as allegations, “pending the outcome of criminal court procedures”.
2.28.1. In light of the above, it argues that the article is not in breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code.
2.29. The respondent denies that it did not make any effort to verify the accuracy of the information in the article.
2.29.1. The publication says it verified the information with the police. In addition, it says it approached the complainant who, in turn, referred the publication to her husband. It also points out that the complainant’s response was included in the article.
2.29.2. The publication therefore maintains that the article is not in breach of Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.
Lucie Pagé
Article 2:
2.30. The complainant states that the police were not in a position to corroborate allegations of intimidation. As a result, she says, there is no evidence to indicate that the article complies with Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
2.31. The complainant also denies that her version was reflected in the article. She points out that, in his comment, her husband advises the publication to read his letter for an account of what happened. However, she says, the contents of this letter were not included in the article.
2.31.1. She regards this as a material omission and believes that, as a result, the article is not balanced. She therefore maintains that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
2.32. In reply to City Press’s response regarding Clause 1.3 of the Press Code, the complainant argues that it is not true that the article presents the events that took place as allegations pending the outcome of criminal court procedures.
2.32.1. In support of this argument, she refers to a number of sentences in the article and submits that these are not clearly presented as allegations.
2.32.2. These include the following sentences: “Page accused Pretorius that she, as a physically disabled person, was walking around their (the Naidoo family chalet) at night in an attempt to stop the celebrations on 20 December”; “On 23 December Page went to the shop to provoke Pretorius into a verbal argument about the issue again …”; and “Pretorius kept her cool and tried to calm Page down when she tried to start a verbal argument”.
2.32.3. The complainant further states that no criminal procedures are pending as she has not been formally charged or contacted by the police for a statement.
2.32.4. In light of the above, she submits that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code.
2.33. With regard to Clause 1.7 of the Press Code, the complainant submits that the allegations in the article were not verified by the police nor by her. Furthermore, she denies the allegations “in their entirety”.
2.33.1. She also submits that Naidoo’s response was not reflected in the article and again refers to his request for his letter to be read (point 2.31).
2.33.2. She argues that the contents of this letter should have been included in the article in order to present a balanced report. Despite Naidoo’s request for his letter to be read, she says, its contents were not included in the article.
2.34. The complainant further points out that the publication does not response to her complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 3.3 of the Press Code. She reiterates that it cannot rely on any of the exceptions outlined in Clauses 3.3.1 to 3.3.5.
- Discussion
Article 1:
3.1. The complainant acknowledges that Pretorius opened a case against her with the police. However, she denies that she was charged with assault (point 2.1.1, 2.20 and 2.20.1).
3.1.1. Firstly, it is important to note that nowhere in the article does the respondent state that the complainant was “charged” with assault. It reports that Pretorius “filed” a charge of assault at the Mooinooi police station (my emphasis).
3.1.2. The article subsequently elaborates on this and reports: “The SA Police Service (Saps) has been notified, and a case of assault has been opened against Pagé at the Mooinooi Saps under CAS 444/12/2024 (my emphasis).”
3.1.3. Secondly, there is some merit in the respondent’s claim that it used the words “charged with assault” – as it does in the headline – to facilitate an understanding in the minds of the public that a criminal charge was registered with the police.
3.1.4. While it may not be strictly correct in a legal sense to state that the complainant was charged with assault, it would be unreasonable to sanction the publication for using those words to accompany a news article written for the general public. The point remains that Pretorius opened a case of assault against the complainant.
3.1.5. Accordingly, the article is not in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
3.2. The complainant’s claim that the article was not balanced because it did not reflect her side of the story is presented as a breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code. However, it is more appropriate to deal with this complaint in relation to Clause 1.8, which the complainant recognises in her response to the respondent’s reply (see point 2.22.3).
3.3. The complainant claims that the article presents it as a statement of fact that she is a violent person even though there is no evidence to substantiate this claim (point 2.3). However, nowhere does the article state that she is a violent person.
3.3.1. Merely reporting on an allegation of assault does not imply that there is any truth in the allegation nor does it make any judgement on the character of the individual against whom such an allegation is directed.
3.3.2. There is therefore no merit in the claim that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code.
3.4. There is also insufficient merit in the claim that no attempt was made to verify the information in the article or that no attempt was made to verify the accounts of the eyewitnesses quoted in the article (see points 2.4 and 2.21.1).
3.4.1. According to the article, the publication spoke to Pretorius and at least three eyewitnesses. Furthermore, the respondent consulted police and medical records as part of its efforts to verify the information in the article (see point 2.15.1).
3.4.2. There is no basis either for the claim that the article relies heavily on accounts from those aligned with Pretorius. It is unclear how the complainant arrives at this conclusion when none of the eyewitnesses are identified in the article.
3.4.3. The fact that the accounts of these eyewitnesses support Pretorius’s version of events is not necessarily proof of any collusion. It may simply be that their accounts coincide with that of Pretorius because they are an accurate account of what transpired.
3.4.4. The complainant does not offer any information that suggests that the publication wilfully disregarded the views of any eyewitnesses who provided accounts that differ from Pretorius’s version of events.
3.4.5. There is thus no reason to believe that the publication did not make reasonable efforts to verify the information in the article. In view of the above, the article is not in breach of Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.
3.5. The complainant submits that the article incorrectly reports that she refused to comment (point 2.2.1).
3.5.1. However, the respondent rightly points out that it does not state that she refused to comment. The article reports that the complainant “did not respond to questions regarding her side of the events when approached for her perspective” (point 2.14.4.).
3.5.2. Be that as it may, the complainant nevertheless maintains that she was not given sufficient time to provide a response.
3.5.3. According to the publication, it first sent her a request for comment via WhatsApp on 23 December 2024 (see point 2.14.1).
3.5.4. However, this message was sent at 9.50pm and 9.55pm respectively, without any indication of when a reply was expected.
3.5.5. Furthermore, the message does not specifically state that the author was contacting the complainant in her capacity as a journalist and not as a fellow resident of Utopia Nature Reserve.
3.5.6. The first part of the message, sent at 9.50pm, asks: “May I please find out what happened in the shop today?” It then goes on to ask at 9.55pm: “Can you confirm whether you pushed Sarie? Did this happen with your small grandchild in tow? Why did you confront Sarie in a screaming match as you put it on the community chat group.”
3.5.7. A follow-up WhatsApp message sent to the complainant at 8.24am on 24 December 2024 starts off by saying: “You describe what happened with Sarie [at] the shop as a mere screaming match.”
3.5.8. The author then raises a number of points which, according to her, differ from the accounts provided by eyewitnesses. Her message ends by requesting the complainant “to let me know from your perspective what happened”.
3.5.9. Only then does the message state: “I am enquiring in my capacity as a journalist.”
3.5.10. It is unusual, to say the least, to request someone to provide answers to a number of questions and then only to clarify in a follow-up WhatsApp message – and right at the end of that message – that the request is being made by Schutte in her capacity as a journalist.
3.5.11. Moreover, three minutes later – at 8.27am – the complainant is asked to provide a response before 9.30am.
3.5.12. In my view, the respondent’s request for comment deviates from the requirement in the Press Code that “a subject should be afforded reasonable time to respond”.
3.5.13. Firstly, the initial email to Pagé was sent to her late on the evening of 23 December 2024 – without a clear indication that it was being sent by Schutte in her capacity as a journalist and not as a fellow resident of Utopia. And, secondly, it was only made clear the next morning by when a response was required (point 2.22).
3.5.14. This expectation would have been unreasonable even if it was not Christmas Eve. Yet the fact that it was the day before Christmas – a time when many, if not most, people in South Africa take time out from the usual obligations of life – make it even more so.
3.5.15. That the journalist tried to phone the complainant twice on 24 December 2024 does not change the fact that Pagé was given an unreasonable time frame in the first place within which to respond to the request for comment.
3.5.16. Based on these considerations, the article is deemed to be in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.
3.6. The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.10 of the Press Code is based on the complainant’s view that the publication failed to take any steps to reflect or clarify her version of events even though she says it received a response from her on 25 December 2024.
3.6.1. However, the complainant acknowledges that this was a day after the article was already published.
3.6.2. In any event, it was not made clear to the publication that the Utopia estate trustee who conveyed her response to City Press was acting on her behalf.
3.6.3. Moreover, it is most unsatisfactory to respond to the publication’s request for comment by way of a WhatsApp message that was originally sent to the trustee and then, afterwards, to request him to forward this same message to the publication as a formal response to a request for comment.
3.6.4. In light of the above, the article is not in breach of Clause 1.10 of the Press Code.
3.7. The complainant accuses the journalist of bias and points out that Schutte is also a resident of the Utopia Nature Estate (see points 2.5 and 2.24).
3.7.1. In itself, this may not necessarily preclude Schutte from acting in her capacity as a journalist to report on the incident involving the complainant and Pretorius. In fact, this may be an advantage: as a resident, she is well-placed to gather information on the incident at the estate.
3.7.2. However, a problem arises if she does not do so impartially.
3.7.3. The complainant suggests that this is the case in this instance. In support of her claim, she includes a copy of a letter that she wrote to the Utopia estate’s board as well as a copy of Schutte’s response to this letter (Annexures A).
3.7.4. This exchange does indeed suggest that Schutte has strong views on various matters at the estate in which the complainant is involved. In particular, she believes that the complainant flouts certain rules of conduct of the estate.
3.7.5. It is not known whether Schutte disclosed this to the publication. If not, this was in blatant disregard of the Press Code’s requirement in Clause 2.1 that the media must “avoid conflicts of interest”.
3.7.6. If she did disclose this to the publication, and the publication nevertheless decided not to assign the article to another journalist, it makes the breach of this clause even more egregious.
3.7.7. Either way, there was a failure to avoid a potential conflict of interest. As such, the article does not sufficiently comply with the requirement outlined in Clause 2.1 of the Press Code.
3.8. There are no grounds for the complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 3.3 of the Press Code. It sufficiently meets the requirement of public interest, which is defined in the Press Code preamble as “information of legitimate interest or importance to citizens”.
3.8.1. Firstly, in her own words, the complainant is “a well-recognised, award-winning
international journalist” (see point 2.11.1). It is therefore reasonable to assume that there would be legitimate interest in a matter that involves such a prominent figure.
3.8.2. Secondly, the name of her husband – a former trade union leader and Cabinet Minister – comes up several times in the article. There is bound to be legitimate public interest in a matter that involves a high-profile figure such as Naidoo.
3.8.3. Thirdly, the alleged incident in the shop on the estate appears to be related to a dispute between some residents of a sectional title estate about certain rules of conduct. As many people in South Africa live in blocks of flats or complexes that are governed by the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act, such a dispute is bound to be of public interest.
3.8.4. Furthermore, the article is based on facts that are “substantially true”, in line with Clause 3.3.1 of the Press Code. As such, the publication was entitled to publish the article even though it was related to a matter involving an individual’s dignity and reputation.
3.8.5. Based on these considerations, the article is not in breach of Clause 3.3 of the Press Code.
Article 2:
3.9. The complainant submits that the article claims that she is involved in intimidating Pretorius and rejects this as false (point 2.7).
3.9.1. However, nowhere does the article state that Pagé is personally involved in any acts of intimidation against Pretorius. In fact, it quotes Pretorius as claiming that she was “intimidated by some staff and trustees in an attempt to have me withdraw the criminal case” (my emphasis).
3.9.2. The article also reports that Pretorius claims that she “has suffered repeated acts of intimidation, allegedly by some estate staff” (my emphasis).
3.9.3. Even though the article does state that some of these staff members have “known personal relationships” with the complainant and her husband, this still does not amount to a claim by the publication that Pagé herself is involved in intimidating Pretorius.
3.9.4. As such, there are no grounds to claim that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code in this respect.
3.10. The complainant further submits that the article is not balanced and presents this as a breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code (point 2.8.2). As with the article published on 24 December 2024, this complaint will be dealt with more appropriately in terms of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.
3.11. There is no merit in the complainant’s claim that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code by presenting certain allegations as statements of fact (see 2.32.2).
3.11.1. The following sentence precedes the references to which the complainant objects: “Later in the day, after filing a charge of assault at Mooinooi Police Station, Pretorius said the incident came as a shock to guests and owners who were present at the shop.”
3.11.2. It would therefore be clear to a reasonable reader that the sentences that follow are part of Pretorius’s account of the incident in question. Moreover, this account explicitly indicates this in two instances by using the words “Pretorius told City Press”.
3.11.3. In light of the above, the article is not in breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code.
3.12. There is also insufficient merit in the complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.
3.12.1. The article reflects the views of the complainant, her husband and Pretorius as part of the respondent’s efforts to verify the information in the article.
3.12.2. In addition, the respondent also contacted the police, who confirmed that a case of intimidation was opened against the complainant by Pretorius (points 2.26 and 2.26.1).
3.12.3. In light of the above, the article is therefore not in breach of Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.
3.13. With regard to Clause 1.8, it must be noted that the article quotes from the complainant’s dismissal of the legitimacy of various complaints in a WhatsApp chat group made up of Utopia residents.
3.13.1. In addition, the article includes comments from the complainant, the complainant’s husband and their legal representative.
3.13.2. Moreover, there is no obligation to quote in full the comment of the subject of critical reportage. The only requirement of the Press Code is that the subject’s comment should give a fair reflection of the subject’s response.
3.13.3. As noted in a previous Press Council ruling: “It is not necessary for every element of a response to be covered, nor that every small detail is put to the subject of critical reportage. What is important is for their position to be reflected fairly, which means that the major elements need to be reflected.”[2]
3.13.4. In my view, the article sufficiently meets this requirement in relation to the complainant and her legal representative about the allegation of intimidation. There was thus no further need to reflect the comment of the complainant’s husband at any length.
3.13.5. In light of the above considerations, there is no basis for the claim that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.
3.14. With regard to Clause 3.3 of the Press Code, the publication took sufficient care and consideration of the dignity and reputation of the complainant.
3.14.1. Not only did it seek, and duly reflect, her response to the allegations about acts of intimidation against Pretorius. It also recorded the response of her husband and their legal representative to these allegations.
3.14.2. Furthermore, the article adequately meets the requirement of legitimate public interest.
3.14.3. As stated in point 3.8.1, in view of the fact that the complainant is “a well-recognised, award-winning international journalist”, it is reasonable to assume that there would be public interest in a matter that involves such a prominent figure.
3.14.4. Secondly, the name of her husband also comes up several times in this article. There is bound to be legitimate public interest in a matter that involves such a high-profile figure as Naidoo, a former trade union leader and Cabinet Minister.
3.14.5. There is therefore insufficient merit in the claim that the article is in breach of Clause 3.3 of the Press Code.
- Finding
Article 1:
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.1 to 3.1.5 of my Discussion.
As noted in point 2 of my Discussion, the complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is dealt with in relation to Clause 1.8.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.3 to 3.3.2 of my Discussion.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.7 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.4 to 3.4.5 of my Discussion.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 is upheld for the reasons set out in points 3.5 to 3.5.16 of my Discussion.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.10 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.6 to 3.6.4 of my Discussion.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 2.1 is upheld for the reasons set out in points 3.7 to 3.7.7 of my Discussion.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 3.3 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.8 to 3.8.5 of my Discussion.
Article 2:
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.9.1 to 3.9.4 of my Discussion.
As noted in point 3.10 of my Discussion, the complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is dealt with in relation to Clause 1.8.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.11 to 3.11.3 of my Discussion.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.7 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.12 to 3.12.3 of my Discussion.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.13 to 3.13.5 of my Discussion.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 3.3 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.14 to 3.14.5 of my Discussion.
Firstly, City Press is required to publish an apology for breaching Clauses 1.8 and 2.1 in Article 1.
Secondly, the respondent should give the complainant the right to reply in Article 1. The complainant should send the draft of her reply to me within seven working days for my approval (khanyim@ombudsman.org.za).
Thirdly, the updated article should publish a note under the headline: “NOTE: This article has been updated. See Editor’s Note below, including an apology to Lucie Pagé.” The Editor’s Note should state when and how the article has been updated, and should include the full apology to Pagé as directed above and Pagé’s right of reply.
Fourthly, the apology and the final update to the article 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 online on City Press’s landing page for one day and on all its platforms where the article was published;
- be published online with a headline including the words “apology” and “Lucie Pagé” or “Pagé”;
- be published with a link to the updated online 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, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za
Tyrone August
Deputy Press Ombud
10 July 2025
[1] The publication did not initially respond to the complaint that Article 1 is in breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code nor to any of the complaints about alleged breaches of the Press Code in Article 2. In reply to my enquiry, the respondent acknowledged that it inadvertently did not provide a response to these aspects of the complaints and subsequently proceeded to do so (see points 2.25 and 2.26-29).
[2] https://presscouncilsa.org.za/2023/12/15/cornerstone-college-and-sally-ann-hurlin-vs-city-press/