Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Renaldo Gouws vs News24

, ,

Complaint 32176

Ruling 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 Renaldo 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, due to a new development, the respondents on 6 May objected to the Public Advocate’s decision to accept the complaint.
  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 Because of some related new developments, a first response submitted on 13 May was superseded by a final version submitted on 9 June.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. This was because of particular circumstances, including developments that took place after the initial complaint was made.
  9. On 19 June, I issued a ruling that overturned the PA’s decision not to accept the complaint. That ruling is available
  10. News24 accepted this outcome and offered to publish a clarification. Despite extensive efforts by the PA to find common ground, the complainant and respondent could not agree on the wording to be used. As a result, the complainant insisted on the complaint being formally considered.

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.

The complaint

  1. The complainant said that the reference to him was in breach of clause 7.2 of the Press Code, in that the comment did not take fair account of all material facts.
  2. In this case, the material fact that should have been taken into account was that immediately after the statement about killing black people, he had said he did not mean it but wanted to evoke a response. The overall intention of the video was to criticise the “Kill the boer” song associated with Economic Freedom Fighters’ leader Julius Malema, and the complainant was being deliberately provocative to do so.

Arguments & discussion

  1. The present case is unusual in a number of respects.
  2. For one thing, the complainant reached a settlement with the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) after the commission initiated proceedings against him in the Equality Court. The settlement (available here) was announced on 16 May – after the column was published and while his complaint was before the Press Council of SA.  That settlement saw the complainant apologise unreservedly for the “violent language” and “racial slurs” he used in the 2010 video.
  3. In addition, the respondents, New24, offered a clarification that included Gouws’s follow-up statement that he didn’t mean it and offered to apologise for the omission.
  4. Under the circumstances, I do not propose to go through the extensive exchange of arguments put forward by both sides over the intervening months. Considerable common ground now exists: The complainant has accepted that the language he used was unacceptable, offensive and deeply hurtful, notwithstanding the following statement that he did not mean it. The respondents have acknowledged that the qualifying statement should have been mentioned.
  5. The complaint was framed in terms of Section 7.2, which reads as follows:

Comment or criticism is protected even if it is extreme, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it is without malice, in on a matter of public interest, has taken 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.

  1. As has been noted in several rulings (among others, see the Appeal Ruling in News24 vs Gayton Mackenzie, case 32077/11/2024), the provision is treated as a ‘safe harbour’: if its terms are met, an article is protected against an adverse finding under another section of the Press Code. If they are not met in one or other way, it risks an adverse finding.
  2. In this case, the omission means that the requirement to take full account of the facts is not met.
  3. As a result, the article must be judged against other parts of the Press Code.
  4. Of relevance here is clause 1.2, which requires the media to

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. The omission of the complainant’s qualifying statement is material, and the article therefore fails to present news in a balanced manner. It breaches Clause 1.2.

Ruling

  1. I find that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code by omitting to mention the qualifying statement that showed Gouws did not mean literally to call for the killing of black people.

Sanction

  1. As set out above, the remaining point of dispute is how the matter should be rectified.
  2. After an extensive exchange, News24 offered to publish a clarification under the headline:

Clarification: Renaldo Gouws did not literally mean black people must be killed when he used the k-word.

  1. The clarification then gave context of the column and the video, leading up to the paragraph:

Gouws took issue with Basson’s column and argues that News24 had to include the part that he “didn’t mean anything”. News24 hereby clarifies that Gouws followed his call for the killing of black people up with a statement that he “didn’t mean” it. We apologise that this was not reflected in the column.

It then continued to quote extensively from the SAHRC statement on the settlement reached.

  1. The complainant felt the apology did not go far enough. The PA suggested a compromise, but the respondents were not prepared to go beyond their wording. It seems the only remaining point of difference is the prominence given to the word “apology” and whether it is issued in general terms or to the complainant.
  2. The exact wording of a corrective statement is usually left to the respondent, subject to approval by the relevant member of the Ombud’s office. Since the parties have been unable to agree on wording in this case, I have decided to direct specific wording.
  3. I order News 24 to publish the following on the home page, remaining visible on the home page for at least two days:

Headline: Clarification and apology: Renaldo Gouws did not literally mean black people must be killed when he used the k-word

Text:

On 25 March News24’s editor-in-chief Adriaan Basson published a column titled “Open letter to Elon Musk” [LINK] in which he referred to a song sung by Julius Malema and added: “tweeted by a man called Renaldo Gouws, who himself called for the killing of black people in a YouTube video in 2010”.

Gouws laid a complaint with the Press Council of SA against the column, arguing that the statement was used out of context. News24 clarifies that Gouws directly followed his statement up with “I didn’t mean anything I just said, but I wanted to evoke a response out of you.” We apologise that this was not reflected in the column.

News24 reported earlier [LINK] that on 16 May 2025, the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) had issued a statement in which it confirmed that it had settled a complaint against Gouws in relation to the video he published in 2010, “which contained racially offensive and harmful language directed at Black South Africans”.

In terms of the settlement, Gouws has issued an unconditional apology for his use of racist and violent language, notwithstanding the statement that he did not mean it. Details of the settlement and apology are available here. [LINK]

This clarification and apology is published in accordance with a ruling by Deputy Press Ombud Franz Krüger. The full ruling is available here. [LINK]

  1. I order News24 to publish the following at the original article:

Under the headline:

NOTE: Clarification and apology: See Editor’s Note below article.

Under the article:

EDITOR’S NOTE: Clarification and apology: Renaldo Gouws did not literally mean black people must be killed when he used the k-word

(published on (date))

Text: Gouws laid a complaint with the Press Council of SA about the statement “tweeted by a man called Renaldo Gouws, who himself called for the killing of black people in a YouTube video in 2010”, arguing it  was used out of context. News24 clarifies that he had directly followed his statement up with “I didn’t mean anything I just said, but I wanted to evoke a response out of you.” We apologise that this was not reflected in the column.

News24 reported earlier [LINK] that on 16 May 2025, the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) had issued a statement in which it confirmed that it had settled a complaint against Gouws in relation to the video he published in 2010, “which contained racially offensive and harmful language directed at Black South Africans”.

In terms of the settlement, Gouws has issued an unconditional apology for his use of racist and violent language, notwithstanding the statement that he did not mean it. Details of the settlement and apology are available here. [LINK]

This clarification and apology is published in accordance with a ruling by Deputy Press Ombud Franz Krüger. The full ruling is available here. [LINK]

  1. Both clarifications must appear with the Press Council of SA logo.

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
14 August 2025

 

Related Posts