Venter vs Citizen
Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August
26 January 2026
Finding: Complaint 000458
Request for condonation
Publication (print and online): The Citizen
Headline: This man has been in witness protection for 15 months because ‘David Mabuza wants me dead’
Date of publication: 15 August 2019
Author: Charles Cilliers
Particulars
This finding is based on a written appeal by Mr Jan Venter against the Public Advocate’s decision not to condone a late complaint against The Citizen.
As the complaint was not accepted by the Public Advocate, the publication was not requested to provide a response to the complaint.
It must further be noted that my finding does not address the merits of Mr Venter’s complaint. It is confined to his request for condonation of his late complaint.
- Background to request
1.1. According to the complainant, the article in question is inaccurate, misleading and unfair, and continues to cause him harm because it is still available online.
1.1.1. Among other things, he requests a right of reply and what he refers to as direct editorial engagement.
1.2. The complainant states that the article was published while a criminal investigation relating to him was still ongoing and which, at the time of publication, was still unresolved.
1.2.1. He notes that the investigation by the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (Hawks) into his placement in a witness protection programme was still ongoing in 2019.
1.2.2. He states that there was “no prosecutorial decision” in 2019 and that a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions to decline prosecution was made only on 27 May 2021.
1.2.3. He adds that he was only formally notified of this decision in December 2025 after he persistently followed up the matter.
1.2.4. In light of the above, he submits that “no definitive conclusions could lawfully or factually have been drawn in 2019 about my motives, the legitimacy of my protection, or the level of danger to my life”.
1.3. The complainant maintains that the article breached the Press Code by creating the impression that his life was not genuinely in danger, that his placement in witness protection was not justified, that he was acting in bad faith or for financial reasons and that the matter was “effectively resolved or trivial”.
1.3.1. He further submits that he could not have raised his complaint earlier on the basis of “the decisive facts” because the prosecutorial outcome and investigative record were withheld from him until December 2025.
1.4. The Public Advocate subsequently informed the complainant that he (Venter) is aware that his complaint is “more than seven years late”.
1.4.1. He points out that, in terms of the Press Council’s Complaints Procedures, a complaint should be made “as soon as possible, but not later than 20 working days after the date of publication giving rise to the complaint”.
1.4.2. He acknowledges that the Public Advocate has the discretion to accept a late complaint if there are reasonable grounds to do so.
1.4.3. He then refers to the complainant’s submission that he could not have raised the complaint earlier “because the prosecutorial outcome and investigative record were withheld from me until December 2025” (point 1.3.1).
1.4.4. However, the Public Advocate does not regard this as a satisfactory explanation for the delay and says that Venter’s complaint about inaccurate and unfair reporting does not depend on the “prosecutorial outcome and investigative record”.
1.4.5. He states that the article in question was about the complainant and that Venter therefore ought to have known whether it was inaccurate and unfair.
1.4.6. In view of the above, the Public Advocate declined to accept the complaint.
- Complainant’s appeal
2.1. In response to the Public Advocate’s decision, the complainant submitted a formal request for condonation of the late submission of his complaint.
2.1.1. He reiterates that his complaint concerns serious breaches of the Press Code, including inaccurate and misleading reporting, attributing false facts to him and publishing claims which have “direct safety, reputational, and legal consequences”.
2.2. The complainant acknowledges that the article was published several years ago. However, he submits, “lateness is not dispositive”.
2.2.1. He says the question is whether there is a good and satisfactory explanation, “assessed in light of fairness, justice, prospects on the merits, and prejudice”.
2.2.2. He justifies the delay in submitting his complaint on the grounds that objective facts were discovered at a later stage and says it was not late because of neglect, indifference or tactics.
2.2.3. He notes that, at the time of publication, he did not have access to the investigative record of the SAPS/Hawks, the prosecutorial outcome, confirmation that no lawful witness-protection placement existed or verification that “statements attributed to third parties were factually unfounded”.
2.2.4. He maintains that these facts were exclusively within the control of state authorities and were disclosed to him in December 2025 only.
2.2.5. He argues that, until this disclosure was made, he could not objectively demonstrate falsity, could not rebut third-party attributions with documentary proof and could not frame a Press Code complaint based on verifiable fact.
2.2.6. He says that this instance is therefore not a case of a complainant merely “changing his mind”, but one in which decisive facts only became available years later.
2.2.7. He believes that this matter involves “substantive justice, not mechanical time-bar enforcement”.
2.3. The complainant further notes that the article remains published online and continues to cause him reputational and “safety-related” harm.
2.3.1. He states that refusing to consider that the ethical breach is not confined to the past but is renewed daily by the continued availability of the article would “elevate form over substance and undermine the Press Council’s remedial purpose”.
2.3.2. He maintains that he would suffer continued reputational damage and risk to his safety if condonation of his appeal is refused.
2.3.3. In light of the above, he says, “the balance of prejudice favours condonation”.
2.4. The complainant also points out that he is aware of Press Council decisions that emphasise that longer delays require more cogent explanations. He maintains that his request meets this requirement.
2.4.1. He submits that, in this case, the delay is not routine but due to later disclosure of official records. In addition, he states that the subject matter involves serious implications for public interest and that the harm to him is ongoing.
2.4.2. He maintains that granting condonation in these circumstances would therefore not create a bad precedent. On the other hand, he says, refusing to grant it would do so.
- Discussion
3.1. The key argument behind the complainant’s request for condonation is that certain information was not available at the time the article was published by The Citizen in August 2019 (see points 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2 and 2.2.3).
3.1.1. He contends that he was in a position to lodge a complaint against the article only after he was formally informed of the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions to decline prosecution in December 2025.
3.1.2. The lengthy duration of the process undertaken by the Director of Public Prosecutions in order to arrive at its decision is duly noted and is, quite obviously, beyond the control of the complainant.
3.1.3. Nevertheless, this does not adequately explain why the complainant did not lodge a complaint timeously or, at the very least, much earlier.
3.1.4. By his own account, he was informed in May 2021 of the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions to decline prosecution (point 1.2.2). Yet even then – nearly two years after The Citizen published its article – he did not submit a complaint about the article.
3.1.5. In any event, it is not clear why it was essential for the complainant to wait for official notification about the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions before he felt he was in a position to lodge a complaint with the Press Council.
3.1.6. After all, the Press Council’s “Code of Ethics and Conduct for South African Print and Online Media” deals with matters of ethics related to the editorial content published by subscriber members.
3.1.7. It was therefore not necessary for the complainant to wait for the outcome of a police investigation or any other law-enforcement processes before submitting a complaint to the Press Council.
3.1.8. The argument that the complainant was waiting for verifiable information to provide evidence to support his complaint does not hold water.
3.1.9. As the Public Advocate rightly notes, the article in question relates to the complainant himself. As such, he therefore ought to have known whether the article was inaccurate and unfair (point 1.4.5).
3.1.10. Furthermore, the complainant refers more than once to the negative impact of the article on his safety and reputation (points 2.1.1, 2.3 and 2.3.2). This is all the more reason why it was in his own interest to lodge a complaint about the article as soon as possible after it was published.
3.1.11. However, more than six years passed (not seven, as the Public Advocate states in point 1.4) before he approached the Press Council with his complaint. The explanation that he offers to justify such an extraordinarily long delay is far from satisfactory.
3.1.12. To quote from the Appeal Hearing Decision – Spotlight Publications and Sadmon Projects and Consulting cc: “… [T]here must be an adequate explanation for a delay. The longer the delay, the more cogent the explanation should be … None of what is said above even begins to explain why no effort was taken to ensure that the complaint was filed in time. Better explanations with even shorter delays have been rejected in the past. To uphold this condonation would create a very bad precedent.”[1]
3.1.13. Much the same applies to Venter’s request for condonation.
3.2. Furthermore, as I stated in Sedzani Mudau vs City Press, the primary objective of the Press Council and the Press Ombud’s office is to provide a mechanism through which complaints can be addressed expeditiously.[2]
3.2.1. Judge Bernard Ngoepe makes the same point in his 2nd Appeal Decision – Jurie Roux vs News24: “The underlying consideration for the resolution of disputes in terms of the Press Code, is to ensure that complaints are dealt with expeditiously. If time frames are not adhered to without any adequate explanations the purpose would be defeated.”[3]
3.2.2. More recently, Judge Ngoepe makes a similar point in his Appeal Decision – Russell Darren Rodez vs Media24: “It appears that the complaint was lodged more than two years after the dates of publication of the articles concerned. No persuasive explanation was provided for the delay. An entertainment of a complaint lodged so hopelessly out of time would bring the process of the adjudication of complaints into disrepute.”[4]
3.2.3. Although an Ombud is allowed some latitude on late submissions in certain circumstances, a situation cannot be allowed where time limits are exceeded without any reasonable justification.
3.2.4. This is clearly not in the interests of a complainant and would also place an unfair obligation on the publication at which a complaint is directed.
3.2.5. Furthermore, to accept a complaint that goes back several years would defeat the objective of providing a mechanism that offers remedial action within a reasonable time period. This would negate the main purpose of the Press Council’s adjudication process.
3.2.6. In addition, as mentioned in point 3.1.11, the complainant does not provide any persuasive reasons to justify such a drastic deviation from the time frame prescribed in the Press Council’s Complaints Procedures.
3.2.7. To accede to his request would be a serious and unprecedented departure from the requirements set out in these procedures. The gap between 20 working days after the date of publication of an article giving rise to a complaint and six years after the date of publication is far too huge.
3.2.8. And, in the absence of any compelling reason to do so, there is no justification to make an exception in this instance and grant Venter’s request for condonation.
- Finding
For the reasons outlined above under points 3.1 and 3.2 of my Discussion, I uphold the Public Advocate’s decision and decline the request for condonation.
Appeals procedure
The Complaints Procedure stipulates that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, the complainant 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
26 January 2026
[1] https://presscouncilsa.org.za2020/03/13/appeal-hearing-decision-spotlight-publications-and-sadmon-projects-and-consulting-cc/
[2] https://presscouncilsa.org.za/2022/01/13/request-to-reopen-case-sedzani-mudau-vs-city-press/
[3] https://presscouncilsa.org.za/2022/10/03/2nd-appeal-decision-jurie-roux-vs-news24/
[4] https://presscouncilsa.org.za/2025/10/30/russell-darren-rodez-vs-media24/