Roland Schoeman vs The South African
Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August
18 December 2025
Request for adjudication: Complaint 32330
Publication: The South African
Date of publication (online): 19 August 2025
Headline: Roland Schoeman defends Dricus over ‘white genocide’ backlash
Roland Schoeman defends Dricus over ‘white genocide’ backlash
Author: Megan van den Heever
Particulars
This finding is based on a written complaint by Mr Roland Schoeman; a written response by the Public Advocate, Mr Fanie Groenewald, declining to accept the complaint; a written reply by Mr Schoeman requesting that his complaint be adjudicated; and a further written response by Mr Schoeman to my enquiry about two Press Ombud rulings to which he refers in his complaint.
Complaint
The complainant submits that the article transgresses Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 3.3 of the Press Code.
- Summary of article
1.1. The article reports that former Olympic swimmer Roland Schoeman has come out in defence of Dricus du Plessis over claims that the former Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) middleweight world champion is spreading misinformation about South Africa.
1.1.1. According to the article, this relates to the mixed martial arts fighter’s comments about farm murders and his endorsement of claims by US President Donald Trump and US-based entrepreneur Elon Musk that South Africa is promoting a “white genocide”.
1.2. Schoeman reportedly described Du Plessis as the “People’s Champ” and “African champ” on X [formerly Twitter]. He subsequently wrote that “They’ll hate him [Du Plessis] for speaking truth”.
1.2.1. And, in response to someone who disputed the term “white genocide”, Schoeman posted: “Call it what you want, but the numbers don’t lie. 13,000+ Farm attacks since ’94, around 2,000 murders.”
1.2.2. He added: “Whites are only 7% of the population, yet are killed at 3-4x the national murder rate. Victims were raped, burned with boiling water, stabbed hundreds of times, often with nothing stolen.”
- Roland Schoeman
2.1. The complainant starts off by claiming that the headline and “framing” of the article are inaccurate and misleading
2.1.1. He states that his comments refer to farm murders and that the term “white genocide” is wrongly attributed to him in the context of the article.
2.1.2. While he acknowledges that he previously said he believes South Africa is “at various stages of a white genocide”, he says those remarks were not part of his posts defending Du Plessis.
2.1.3. He maintains that, by including unrelated comments he made previously, the publication was deliberately misrepresenting him.
2.2. The complainant goes on to claim that there is a pattern of targeted reporting in that this is not the first time the author of the article in question has written articles about him that are “inaccurate, misleading, and sensationalist”.
2.2.1. He submits that this shows a pattern of bias and disregard for accuracy.
2.2.2. By so doing, the complainant argues, the article misleads the public, damages his reputation and creates “an inflammatory narrative”.
2.3. To remedy this, the complainant requests a prominent correction of the headline and an amendment of the article to accurately reflect his comments. In addition, he requests an apology acknowledging the misrepresentation.
2.3.1. He further requests the correction and apology to be published “with equal visibility to the original article” and for these to appear on the same platforms and channels used to promote the original article.
2.3.2. Lastly, he requests that the “pattern” of writing by the author of the article be addressed in order to ensure that repeated inaccuracies are scrutinised and corrected.
2.4. The complainant subsequently identified two additional articles in The South African by the same reporter that, in his view, illustrate “a sustained pattern of malicious, sensationalist, and inaccurate reporting” about him.[1]
2.4.1. To remedy this, he requests an investigation into this pattern of coverage, a correction or clarification “across all the offending articles” and the publication of a prominent apology.
- Public Advocate
3.1. The Public Advocate responded that, while he appreciates the sensitivity around the words “white genocide”, he does not read in the article what the complainant alleges in his complaint.
3.1.1. He states that a reasonable reader will read the headline as “… Schoeman defends Dricus …” over the backlash that Du Plessis received about the “white genocide saga”, which includes comments made by Trump and Musk.
3.1.2. The Public Advocate contends that the subheading – “Former Olympic swimmer Roland Schoeman has defended Dricus du Plessis’s views on farm murders and the claim of a ‘white genocide’” – confirms the above interpretation.
3.1.3. He therefore cannot find, as the complainant argues, that the “article fabricates by attributing the term ‘white genocide’ to [you] in this context”.
3.1.4. He points out that a reading of the whole article makes it clear as well that it does not attribute the words “white genocide” to Schoeman.
3.1.5. The Public Advocate therefore declined to accept the complaint as he could not find the article to be “prima facie in breach of the Press Code”.
- Roland Schoeman
4.1. In his response, the complainant contends that the Public Advocate’s refusal to accept his complaint is both procedurally irregular and substantively incorrect in terms of the Press Code.
4.1.1. He argues that the Public Advocate’s assessment contains numerous errors of fact and interpretation that fundamentally misrepresent the nature of his complaint and “the standards of the Press Council”.
4.2. Firstly, the complainant submits that the Public Advocate misreads his “core complaint”.
4.2.1. He maintains that he was not complaining about whether the words “white genocide” appeared in quotation marks next to his name, and states that his central complaint was that the framing, structure and language of the article “implicitly and falsely attribute that narrative” to him.
4.2.2. He believes that stating that “Like Dricus du Plessis, Roland Schoeman has also used his platform to speak about farm murders” and then immediately segueing into “Responding to one critic who disputed the term ‘white genocide’, Roeland [sic] posted …”, the article creates a causal and contextual link that directly associates him with the claim of a “white genocide”.
4.2.3. He argues that the Public Advocate’s assertion that “white genocide” is not attributed to him ignores this “structural attribution” and thus misrepresents his complaint.
4.3. Secondly, the complainant submits that the Public Advocate incorrectly applies the test of a reasonable reader.
4.3.1. Schoeman takes issue with the argument that a reasonable reader would view the article simply as a defence of Du Plessis over the backlash he is receiving about the “white genocide saga”.
4.3.2. He believes an ordinary reader would conclude from the headline and the sequence of the paragraphs that he is part of – and is defending – the narrative of a “white genocide”. He regards this as false and damaging to his reputation, and hence in breach of the Press Code’s requirements of fairness and contextual integrity.
4.4. Thirdly, the complainant reiterates his complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 3.3 of the Press Code. He says the Public Advocate does not address any of these clauses.
4.4.1. Instead, he submits, the Public Advocate collapses the issue into a simplistic matter of “Did he or didn’t he say those exact words”. He maintains that this not the appropriate test under the Press Code nor in terms of the complaint that he filed.
4.5. Fourthly, the complainant claims that the Public Advocate fails to recognise the contextual distortion in the article and says that the sequencing of the paragraphs is not neutral.
4.5.1. He maintains that the sequencing creates “a contextual conflation” that any reader would reasonably interpret as an endorsement by him of the words “white genocide”.
4.5.2. In support of his argument, he refers to previous Press Council rulings, namely City Press v AfriForum and TimesLive v De Klerk Foundation.[2] According to him, these found that misleading juxtaposition constitutes “implicit misattribution, even absent explicit quotation”.
4.5.3. By failing to assess the effect of the composition of the article, he asserts, the Public Advocate replaces the objective standard required by these rulings with a personal interpretation.
4.6. Fifthly, the complainant submits that the Public Advocate’s conclusion that he
cannot find the article “to be prima facie in breach” is unsustainable.
4.6.1. He argues that a complaint that alleges misleading framing, contextual distortion and reputational harm automatically qualifies as “prima facie admissible for adjudication” as these are all explicitly identified as breaches under Section 1 of the Press Code.
4.6.2. In light of this, he maintains, the refusal to accept the complaint prematurely adjudicates substance without due process. According to him, this denies him a fair hearing and undermines the Press Council’s procedural integrity.
4.7. Lastly, the complainant submits that the Public Advocate substitutes intent for effect, and contends that he appears to justify the article by implying that the reporter did not intend to attribute the words “white genocide” to him.
4.7.1. However, Schoeman says, intent is irrelevant under the Press Code and that what matters is the effect on the reader. He maintains that the effect is clear in the article in question: it makes it appear as though he is endorsing “an inflammatory, racially charged narrative” that he explicitly rejected.
4.7.2. He contends that this is misleading and damaging to his reputation.
4.8. The complainant requests the Public Advocate to set aside his decision to decline his complaint and to accept the matter for adjudication.
- Analysis
5.1. The central complaint is that the framing, structure and language of the article falsely attribute the narrative of a “white genocide” to the complainant (see points 2.1 and 4.2.1).
5.1.1. Schoeman states that his comments refer to farm murders and that the words “white genocide” are wrongly attributed to him in the “context” of this article (2.1.1).
5.1.2. In other words, the issue at the heart of the complaint is the tone and content of the article as a whole. The complainant claims that – collectively – the article constitutes a breach of the Press Code.
5.1.3. However, the evidence that he provides in support of such a claim is insubstantial and far from persuasive.
5.1.4. The introductory paragraph of the article states that the complainant defended Du Plessis’s comments about farm murders. It also makes reference to the latter’s support for Trump and Musk, “who have accused the country of promoting a ‘white genocide’”.
5.1.5. There is no suggestion at all – either directly or by implication – that Schoeman used the words “white genocide” or that he endorsed such a narrative.
5.1.6. The article goes on to clearly state: “Like Dricus du Pless[is], Roland Schoeman has also used his platform to speak about farm murders.” (my emphasis)
5.1.7. The article then immediately proceeds to quote the complainant’s caption to a clip of comments made by the mixed martial arts fighter. In his caption, Schoeman states that “They’ll hate him [Du Plessis] for speaking truth”.
5.1.8. In this context, a reasonable reader will read the reference to “truth” as a reference to Du Plessis’s comments on farm murders. To suggest otherwise – as the complainant attempts to do in point 4.2.2 – is to deliberately misread the use of the quote in this context.
5.1.9. The complainant also objects to the inclusion of a previous post by him on X in which he takes issue with a comment that denies that “white genocide” is taking place in South Africa. He argues that the use of this comment – which he says was made in a context unrelated to his defence of Du Plessis – misrepresents him (2.1.2).
5.1.10. However, even though this comment was not specifically made in the context of his defence of Du Plessis, the fact remains that the complainant did indeed post that particular comment. Moreover, it can be deemed to be relevant in the sense that it expresses his view on farm murders.
5.1.11. It is therefore quite a leap in logic to argue that the way this post is used in the article suggests that Schoeman used the words “white genocide” or implies that he endorsed such a narrative when he came to Du Plessis’s defence.
5.1.12. Furthermore, it is not entirely clear how the Press Council rulings cited by the complainant (see footnote 2) advance or support his claim that the framing of The South African’s article constitutes a breach of the Press Code.
5.1.13. For one, the relevance of some of these rulings is debatable, Secondly, it is open to question whether the complainant’s interpretation of all five rulings is entirely accurate.
5.1.14. Nevertheless, even if his interpretation is accepted as accurate, this does not mean that the framing of the article published in The South African is in breach of the Press Code as well.
5.1.15. In fact, a reading of the article as a whole suggests quite the opposite to a reasonable reader. There is no compelling evidence that the framing and/or presentation of the article published by The South African is in violation of the Press Code.
5.1.16. There is therefore no substance in the complainant’s argument that the article misrepresents his views on farm murders as an endorsement of the narrative of a “white genocide” in South Africa.
5.2. The complainant does not provide any persuasive evidence either that the headline of the article suggests that he participates in and defends the narrative of a “white genocide”.
5.2.1. The headline refers to Schoeman’s defence of Du Plessis over the backlash faced by the latter regarding his comments on farm murders and the mixed martial arts fighter’s endorsement of the views of Trump and Musk, who believe there is a “white genocide” in South Africa.
5.2.2. The meaning of the headline is thus clear; it does not leave any room for misinterpretation on the part of a reasonable reader (as the complainant contends in 4.3.2). To suggest otherwise is quite a stretch.
5.2.3. And, as the Public Advocate points out, the meaning of the headline is further clarified by the subheading: “Former Olympic swimmer Roland Schoeman has defended Dricus du Plessis’s views on farm murders and the claim of a ‘white genocide’”
5.2.4. In the first part of the subheading, it is clear that the complainant is defending Du Plessis’s views on farm murders. In the second part of the subheading, the reference to “the claim of a ‘white’ genocide’” refers to Du Plessis’s endorsement of the claim of a “white genocide” by Trump and Musk; it is not presented as the view of the complainant.
5.2.5. The headline therefore cannot be construed by a reasonable reader as suggesting that the complainant used the words “white genocide” or that he endorsed such a narrative.
5.3. The complainant further claims that the author of the article displays a pattern of bias and a disregard for accuracy in previous reports on him (see points 2.2.1 and 2.3.2). In support of his argument, he cites an article published on 11 March 2025 and another published on 5 February 2025.
5.3.1. However, the complainant does not provide any reasons why he did not previously raise any objections to these articles.
5.3.2. As I stated with regard to a previous request to reopen a complaint, Sedzani Mudau vs City Press,[3] a key objective of the Press Council and the Ombud office is to provide a mechanism through which complaints can be addressed expeditiously.
5.3.3. While the Ombud is allowed some latitude on time frames in certain circumstances, a situation cannot be allowed where time limits within which to lodge complaints are routinely disregarded.
5.3.4. Such a situation will inevitably lead to a backlog of complaints. This is clearly not in the interests of complainants and would also place an unfair obligation on those publications at which complaints are directed.
5.3.5. In light of the above, I decline to consider the previous articles as part of this complaint.
5.4. Lastly, the complainant contends that the Public Advocate’s decision to decline his complaint is procedurally irregular (see point 4.1).
5.4.1. According to the Press Council’s complaints procedures, though, the Public Advocate is authorised to decline to accept a complaint if, in his view, “there has been no prima facie breach of the Press Code” (see 1.6.2 of the Press Council’s Complaints Procedures).[4]
5.4.2. A complaint is not automatically adjudicated once it has been lodged. The complainant must provide a reasonable argument to support any allegation that there has been a prima facie breach of the Press Code.
5.4.3. In the opinion of the Public Advocate, the evidence provided by the complainant does not suggest that there was indeed any breach of the Press Code and he provided reasons for his conclusion.
5.4.4. The complainant disagreed with this decision and, in line with the Press Council’s Complaints Procedures (point 1.8), duly submitted a request for adjudication to the Press Ombud along with his reasons.
5.4.5. In response, the Public Advocate forwarded (1) the complaint, (2) the Public Advocate’s response and (3) the complainant’s request for adjudication to me for consideration. (He also forwarded the respondent’s response and the complainant’s further response in case I were to decide to adjudicate the matter.)
5.4.6. After carefully considering (1), (2) and (3), I could find no grounds on which to differ with the Public Advocate’s decision to decline to accept the complaint.
5.4.7. For the reasons outlined under points 5.1 and 5.2, I concur with his decision and decline to adjudicate this complaint.
Appeals procedure
The Complaints Procedure stipulates 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@presscouncilsa.org.za
Tyrone August
Deputy Press Ombudsman
18 December 2025
[1] The articles are “We need help: Ex-Olympic swimmer Roland Schoeman to US”, published on 5 February 2025, and “Pool to politics: Who is Roland Schoeman?”, published on 11 March 2025.
[2] The complainant subsequently clarified that this reference was not intended as a citation of exact case names and provided the following rulings instead: Kaizer Chiefs v Sunday World; IFP/Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi v Sunday Times; Zizi Kodwa v News24; Modise v Daily Maverick; and Peach v City Press.
[3] See https://presscouncilsa.org.za/2022/01/13/request-to-reopen-case-sedzani-mudau-vs-city-press/
[4] See https://presscouncilsa.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/PCSA-COMPLAINTS-PROCEDURES-June-2023-1.pdf