News24 vs Southern African Agri Initiative
BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA
In the matter of:
News24 Applicant
And
Southern African Agri Initiative Respondent
Matter No: 32141/2/2025
DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
- News24 (applicant) applies for leave to appeal the Ruling of the Press Ombud dated 31 July 2025 which was granted in favour of Southern African Agri Initiative (respondent). The Ruling was on a complaint by the respondent against an article published by the applicant on 6 February 2025 with the heading “No, Akkerland Boerdery wasn’t expropriated without compensation – owners sold it privately for R80m.” The respondent acted on behalf of Akkerland Boerdery, its member.
- The facts briefly stated: At one point the government wanted to buy the Akkerland Boerdery farms for land restitution purposes. The owners of the farms wanted R200m, but the government was prepared to pay R20m, being the value determined by an evaluator. The Minister then issued an expropriation notice, as well as an eviction order. The latter took the matter to the Land Claims Court to have the notice of expropriation set aside as well as the eviction order. The case was settled on the basis that the Minister withdrew the Notice of Expropriation, and that the ownership of the relevant farms reverted to the owners (Akkerland) with immediate effect. There had, however, not been transfer in the Deeds Office of ownership from Akkerland to anybody else. Later, the farms were sold by Akkerland for R80.5m to a mining company.
- The applicant contended, amongst others, that the article had to be understood within the following context: that there was a narrative that the government was expropriating farms belonging to white people without compensation, and the case of Akkerland Boerdery farms was used as an example to validate the narrative. The applicant said the article was to correct the said narrative by demonstrating that the farms were not lost to Akkerland through expropriation as was suggested, but that they were in fact sold to a mining company for R80m for its coal reserves; all the article conveyed was that the final fate of the farms was not expropriation without compensation as the narrative conveyed, but that they were sold.
- The Ombud found in favour of the respondent; amongst others, on the following technical legal point: Once the Notice of Expropriation, dated 11 March 2018, was issued, Akkerland lost ownership of the farms even though no formal transfer occurred in the Deeds Office; therefore, expropriation did take place. Regarding this point, the applicant, in its application for leave to appeal, argues that the Ruling was over-technical given the facts and context; and that an average reader would not, given the facts such as that the farms were actually sold by Akkerland to the mining company for R80m, subscribe to the narrative that the farms were expropriated by the government (without compensation), notwithstanding the Notice of Expropriation.
- The respondent opposes the application. Many points have been raised for and against the application. As I am minded to grant leave to appeal, I need not go into all of them; they will be argued in full on appeal. What concerns me is that the Ombud’s Ruling might be found not to have considered the above context adequately; the thrust of the article being that the headline and the article sought to contest the narrative that Akkerland farms were not lost to the owners through expropriation but through a sale to a private mining company. This was an important consideration given the fact that, as the applicant says, the farms were given as an example that farms belonging to white farmers were expropriated (without compensation or arbitrarily). Given the facts, can it be correct to say the farms are an accurate example that farms belonging to white farmers were being expropriated without compensation?
- The ombud said amongst others the following:
“57. In my view, an ordinary reader would understand from the headline of this article that the farms of Akkerland Boerdery were not expropriated without compensation. Rather, it was sold in the private market for the sum of R80m.
- Had the sentence stopped at ‘No, Akkerland Boerdery was not expropriated without compensation’ it would have been accurate. But it goes further.
- It is misleading to include the consequent private sale into the same sentence without the necessary context. An ordinary reader would simply understand that it was not X (expropriation), but Y (private sale) whereas it was both X (expropriation, albeit with compensation), followed by a court case reversing X and subsequently Y.” (Own underlining).
- It may reasonably be argued that the Ombud is wrong in his above understanding of the headline, because both statements are correct. It is not clear why the Ombud reads the word “rather” in-between them. Leave out the word “rather”, and you are left with two perfectly correct statements, namely, that the farms were not expropriated without compensation and that they were sold for R80m. The two statements are not contradictory, unless one imports the conjunction “rather” between them; but how about instead introducing the conjunction “and”, or any other conjunction of a similar effect?
- Can it, or can it not, be reasonably argued that to an average reader (not being a jurist), given the fact that the validity of the Notice of Expropriation was challenged and thus pending before Court but withdrawn before its affirmation, including a successful interdict against its effect, the thrust of the article was correct to say that ownership was eventually not lost through expropriation but through an act of sale? Add to that the fact that there was no Deed of Transfer based on the challenged expropriation, but rather on the basis of a deed of sale!
- Given also other points raised by the applicant, I have decided that leave to appeal should be granted.
- Leave to appeal the Ombuds Ruling is hereby granted.
Dated this 29nd day of September 2025
B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel
