Steenhuisen vs Daily Maverick
Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August
11 March 2026
Finding: Complaint 000431
Publication (online): Daily Maverick
Date of publication: 3 December 2025
Headline:
The questions the DA and Steenhuisen won’t answer over Dion George ministerial saga
Author: Rebecca Davis
Particulars
This finding is based on a written complaint on behalf of DA leader Mr John Steenhuisen and the DA by the DA’s Chief of Staff, Mr Chris Laubscher, and the DA’s legal representative, Ms Shannon Solomon; a written response on behalf of Daily Maverick by Deputy Editor Ms Anso Thom; and a written reply on behalf of Mr Steenhuisen and the DA. At my request, I subsequently received a copy of the questions that the Daily Maverick sent to the Department of Agriculture for comment.
Complaint
The complainant submits that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8, 3.3, 5.1/10.1 and 5.2/10.2 of the Press Code.
- Summary of article
1.1. Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen’s department spokesperson, Joylene van Wyk, informed the publication that the department declined to respond to six questions sent by Daily Maverick regarding his trade engagements with the Chinese government.
1.1.1. These questions were based on claims reportedly doing the rounds in the DA about Steenhuisen’s alleged increasing friendliness with China. This prompted speculation on whether his relationship with China – “the world’s largest market for abalone and lion bone” – was related to the decision to dismiss Dion George as Environment Minister.
1.1.2. The article states that this speculation is heightened by the claim that Steenhuisen’s first attempt to dismiss George was at a DA Federal Executive (FedEx) meeting that was unexpectedly called on 15 October 2025.
1.1.3. The Minister was in Shanghai at the time, where he signed a stone fruit trade agreement with China. He also spoke favourably in a statement about the results of Chinese investment in upgrading South Africa’s railways, ports and highways.
1.2. The article notes that Steenhuisen was representing the South African government’s view of the relationship with China rather than that of the DA and points out that his party has historically been far more sceptical of China’s involvement in South Africa.
1.2.1. Nevertheless, it observes, “it is inevitable that, if accurate, an attempt to convince the DA’s FedEx to remove George …while Steenhuisen was in China, will raise eyebrows” (emphases in the original).
1.2.2. It is against this background that Daily Maverick sent questions to the Minister’s department in an attempt to establish the nature and frequency of his visits to China and his activities there since his appointment.
1.3. In late November 2025, the National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) asked the DA to provide reasons for the appointment of Willie Aucamp to replace George as Environment Minister and to explain the process that was followed.
1.3.1. According to the NSPCA, Aucamp “has been accused of having an uncomfortable proximity to hunting and wildlife breeding industries”. His parliamentary disclosures also reportedly show that he has a stake in a mining contracting company.
1.3.2. Through its lawyers, the DA declined to provide any reasons and said it was not legally obliged to do so.
1.3.3. FedEx chair Helen Zille also told the publication that the NSPCA should either submit a Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) request or resort to litigation if it wants to find out the reasons.
1.4. The article further states that the DA went to court several times during the Zuma administration to demand that he give reasons for his Cabinet reshuffles. The Constitutional Court ruled in 2019 that the matter had become moot due to the change of administration.
1.4.1. After the judgment, the DA issued a statement that “every exercise of public power must be subject to the principles of legality and rationality … In the absence of a rational explanation, the President’s decision to reshuffle his Cabinet would be unlawful.”
1.4.2. Zille told Daily Maverick that “the context between the two situations is entirely different” because the NSPCA has not launched a legal challenge.
1.4.3. However, the article says, the fact remains that the DA under Steenhuisen has been given its first opportunity to demonstrate higher standards of transparency and accountability on Cabinet reshuffles than ANC leaders – “yet seems intent on failing the test”.
- Arguments
John Steenhuisen and DA
2.1. The complainants start off by claiming that the article contains factually incorrect statements and that it uses misleading photographic material.
2.1.1. They go on to say that Steenhuisen was not asked to comment “on abalone, lion bone, or any alleged link to the illicit wildlife trade”. Despite this, they claim, the article presents a narrative that associates his lawful trade engagements with China with criminal conduct.
2.1.2. The complainants say this is untrue and damaging, and maintain that the overall effect is to convey a defamatory suggestion that the Minister’s official activities may be connected to wildlife trafficking.
2.1.3. They reject this as being without foundation and say the article violates Clauses 1.1, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8, 3.3, 5.1/10.1 and 5.2/10.2 of the Press Code.
2.2. Regarding Clause 1.1, the complainants state that the article includes a photograph that is referred to as being of Steenhuisen greeting “the G20 delegation from China”. They say the photograph is, in fact, of a Vietnamese delegation.
2.2.1. They regard the error as significant because the article relies on “an asserted link” between the Minister and China.
2.2.2. They further submit that no factual basis is given for the insinuation that his legitimate trade engagements in China may be connected to wildlife trafficking and describe this as unfair.
2.3. The complainants further submit that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 because it presents speculation as fact. They add that the article does not identify repeated speculative assertions as opinion.
2.3.1. They cite the following as examples: “… whether his relationship with the world’s largest market for abalone and lion bone could have something to do with the unexplained decision to axe Dion George …” and “It is inevitable that … eyebrows will be raised”.
2.3.2. They say this fails to meet the Press Code requirement that speculation should be clearly distinguished from fact.
2.4. The complainants claim that wrongly identifying the delegation in the photograph demonstrates a failure to verify “readily checkable information” and is in breach of Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.
2.4.1. They maintain that this misidentification is not a minor detail and strengthens a narrative that suggests there is “a questionable China connection”.
2.5. The complainants also claim that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 by failing to seek and fairly represent comment.
2.5.1. They say the article does not disclose what allegations were put to the department’s spokesperson, whether the insinuations of wildlife trafficking were raised, whether adequate time was given for a response and whether any independent verification steps were taken.
2.5.2. They maintain that fair and balanced reporting require the disclosure of the specific allegations that were put to the subject and “the efforts made to obtain reliable information”. They argue that it is insufficient to rely on a refusal to comment.
2.6. Regarding Clause 3.3, the complainants object to the impression the article creates that Steenhuisen may be linked to abalone, lion bone or other illicit wildlife trafficking.
2.6.1. They say there is no factual foundation in these insinuations and state that the Press Code allows reputational harm only when it is based on truth.
2.7. The complainants believe that the article is in breach of Clause 5.1/10.1 even though the publication removed the misidentified photograph after acknowledging its inaccuracy. While this correction is noted, they say, it does not resolve the breach.
2.7.1. They argue that the photograph formed “an integral part of the article’s premise and materially misled readers at the time of publication”. They believe that its removal does not cure the original violation or its consequences.
2.7.2. The complainants further submit that the headline implies that the Minister is avoiding questions about improper conduct and that the accompanying photograph reinforces a narrative of questionable dealings with China, “even though the individuals depicted are not Chinese officials”.
2.7.3. They say the Press Code requires that headlines and photographs should provide a reasonable reflection of “the facts”. In this instance, they say, this is not the case.
2.8. The complainants observe that Clause 5.2/10.2 of the Press Code states that photographs must not mislead audiences. They contend that publishing an image of a Vietnamese delegation as though it was a Chinese delegation is a serious breach of the code.
2.8.1. They argue that the core argument of the article relies on the supposed China connection. As such, they believe, the photograph “materially distorts” the factual basis of the article.
2.9. In conclusion, the complainants request the Press Ombud to find that the article breached the Press Code and to order it to publish a correction and a public apology. They also request the removal or retraction of the insinuations linking Steenhuisen to wildlife trafficking.
Daily Maverick
2.10. The respondent submits that the article was clearly labelled as an analysis and not a news report.
2.10.1. It says that the thrust of the analysis was to reflect the author’s view that it was “troubling” that the Department of Agriculture refused to provide information regarding international travel funded by taxpayers.
2.10.2. The publication adds that the Department was given six days to respond, which it regards as more than adequate. However, the Department chose not to do so.
2.11. The respondent states that it has been necessary several times for journalists in South Africa to draw attention to the refusal of authorities to provide information to which the public is entitled.
2.11.1. If these issues are not highlighted, it says, South Africa risks becoming a country where officials routinely ignore questions from journalists and the country’s constitutional democracy suffers as a result.
2.12. The respondent refers to RW Johnson’s article, “The DA in crisis”, that was published by Biznews in the same week as the Daily Maverick analysis. In its view, the Biznews article contained far more inflammatory statements about Steenhuisen.
2.12.1. It further notes that the DA sent out a national press statement in response to the Daily Maverick article, headlined “DA to refer Daily Maverick and Rebecca Davis to Press Ombudsperson”.
2.12.2. In the statement, Davis is accused of “unfactual and shoddy” work, “creating a conspiracy”, “racial ignorance”, “unethical practice”, “dishonesty” and “slander” even though the Press Ombud did not yet make any ruling on the matter.
2.12.3. The respondent adds that no such statement was sent out in response to Johnson’s article. It believes this suggests a pattern – that Steenhuisen and the DA seem to target female journalists for vitriolic attacks. It regards this as an attempt to intimidate.
2.13. Regarding Clause 1.1, the respondent says it swiftly corrected the photograph that was mislabelled as Steenhuisen greeting a Chinese rather than a Vietnamese delegation and published a note as soon as the error was identified.
2.13.1. It points out that several photographs were available of the Minister with Chinese delegations and replaced the photograph of Steenhuisen meeting the Vietnamese delegation. It apologises for the initial error.
2.14. With regard to Clause 1.3, the respondent dismisses as incorrect the claim that the analysis piece “repeatedly advances speculative assertions without identifying them as opinion”.
2.14.1. It says that the speculative assertions are clearly identified by repeatedly using the words “claims” and “speculation”. At no point, it says, were these assertions presented as fact.
2.14.2. Furthermore, it again points out that the article is clearly labelled as an “Analysis” rather than a news story.
2.15. Regarding Clause 1.7, the respondent reiterates that the mislabelled photograph was swiftly identified and amended with a note to indicate this. It again states that it regrets the error.
2.16. As for the complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8, the respondent notes that detailed questions were first sent to the Department’s spokesperson on 26 November 2025 at 3.20pm. She replied the next day at 9.54am: “Will respond soonest with the information.”
2.16.1. The publication followed up via WhatsApp on 1 December 2025. The spokesperson replied that same day at 12.18: “Unfortunately we are not going to respond. Sorry for that.”
2.16.2. The respondent again notes that the spokesperson was given six days to respond
“more than adequate time”.
2.16.3. It further states that a Minister’s international travel on taxpayers’ money is always of public interest and therefore regards the Department’s refusal to provide details about this matter to a legitimate media outlet as disappointing.
2.17. In relation to the complaint about Clause 3.3, the respondent submits that its analysis “reports on speculation” and was clearly labelled.
2.17.1. It further observes that the analysis would not have been written if the Department had responded to the questions in an adequate manner: “its point was that the lack of transparency and accountability was troubling”.
2.18. Regarding Clause 5.1/10.1, the respondent says its analysis was headlined, “The questions the DA and Steenhuisen won’t answer over the Dion George ministerial saga”.
2.18.1. It states that the content of the article was literally an account of the questions that the Department, and subsequently the DA, had refused to answer. It says it is therefore hard to see how the headline could be construed as misleading.
2.18.2. With regard to the caption of the photograph, the respondent refers to its response to the complaints that the publication was in breach of Clause 1.1 and Clause 1.7.
2.19. Regarding Clause 5.2/10.2, the publication again refers to its response to the complaints that the article was in breach of Clause 1.1 and Clause 1.7.
2.19.1. The respondent rejects the claim that its error regarding the photograph “materially distorts the factual basis of the story”. It says that multiple photographs exist which clearly demonstrate the “supposed China connection” and notes that it used two of these.
2.20. The respondent submits that the major relief sought by the complainants –
a correction and an acknowledgment of the photographic error – was already implemented on the day of publication.
2.20.1. It rejects the request that the insinuations linking the complainant to wildlife trafficking should be retracted and says the article accurately reflects the fact that there was speculation to this effect.
John Steenhuisen and DA
2.21. The complainants reject the response of the publication in its entirety.
2.21.1. They maintain that the respondent’s reliance on the fact that the article was labelled “Analysis” is misplaced and says the Press Code applies to all editorial content, including comment and analysis.
2.21.2. They state that Clause 1.1 requires reporting to be truthful, accurate and fair. In addition, they say that Clause 1.3 requires that comment must be based on facts that are true or substantially true and should clearly be distinguished from fact.
2.21.3. The complainants maintain that the respondent’s admission that the article misidentified a Vietnamese delegation as Chinese and corrected it after publication constitutes “a direct concession that the article was inaccurate at the time of publication”.
2.21.4. They say that Clause 1.1 and Clause 1.2[1] of the Press Code require that reasonable steps be made to verify information before publication. They argue that a post-publication correction does not cure the breach or comply with the obligation of pre-publication verification.
2.21.5. They add that the respondent’s attempt to minimise the significance of the error on the grounds that other photographs exist of Steenhuisen meeting Chinese delegates fails to engage with the substance of this complaint. They maintain that the incorrect photograph reinforced the central narrative linking Steenhuisen to China and “materially strengthened” the insinuations of which they are complaining.
2.21.6. They argue that the publication does not address this concern in any meaningful way.
2.22. The complainants reject the respondent’s assertion that the article merely reported speculation and that such speculation was clearly identified. They say that this does not address the complaint.
2.22.1. They observe that Clause 1.7 of the Press Code requires that comment must be based on facts that are true or substantially true. However, they argue, the respondent does not identify the verified factual basis for the insinuations that link the Minister’s lawful trade engagements to wildlife trafficking.
2.22.2. They also maintain that the respondent fails to demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to verify these insinuations before publication.
2.23. The complainants further submit that the respondent relies on the claim that it provided six days for a response. They contend that this does not answer the complaint that the article fails to disclose what allegations were put to the complainants, whether the insinuations concerning wildlife trafficking were raised and whether the complainants were given a fair and meaningful opportunity to respond to the substance of the allegations.
2.23.1. They say that the response of the publication does not engage with these issues nor does it demonstrate that they were given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations that appeared in the article.
2.23.2. They submit that the respondent’s contention that reputational harm arose because the Department declined to answer questions is insufficient because reputational harm is justified only where reporting is true or reasonably verified.
2.23.3. They maintain that the response of the publication does not establish this. Instead, they say, it confirms a reliance on speculation “without demonstrating a verified factual foundation”.
2.24. In addition, the complainants claim that the respondent introduces matters unrelated to the complaint, including commentary regarding other publications and allegations concerning their conduct toward journalists.
2.24.1. They dismiss these issues as irrelevant to their complaint and contend that they do not constitute a defence to the breaches of the Press Code.
2.24.2. The complainants therefore maintain that the respondent’s reply fails to address the substance of their complaint and does not demonstrate that the article complies with the Press Code.
- Discussion
3.1. Clause 1.1: This complaint is based, in part, on the fact that a photograph that initially accompanied the article was erroneously referred to as being of Steenhuisen meeting a Chinese delegation instead of a Vietnamese delegation (points 2.2 and 2.21.3).
3.1.1. However, the complainants blow what appears to be little more than human error out of all proportion. Furthermore, the respondent replaced the photograph when it became aware of the error and published a note to this effect at the bottom of the original article.
3.1.2. While this does not absolve the respondent of responsibility for making the error in the first place, it is a bit of a stretch to claim that it was made deliberately in order to deceive readers. There was no need to resort to deception because other photographs were available of the Minister with Chinese delegates.
3.1.3. In any event, as noted in point 3.1.1, the photograph of Steenhuisen with Vietnamese officials was replaced and the error acknowledged. As a result, there is no need to sanction the publication for its initial error.
3.2. The second part of this complaint relates to the complainants’ objection to what they regard as an insinuation that the Minister’s legitimate trade engagements in China may be connected to wildlife trafficking (point 2.2.2).
3.2.1. The relevant part of the article refers to “claims doing the rounds within the DA over Steenhuisen’s alleged increasing chumminess with China, which has prompted speculation whether his relationship with the world’s largest market for abalone and lion bone could have something to do with the unexplained decision to axe Dion George as environment minister” (my emphases).
3.2.2. Such claims are a legitimate subject of coverage of matters that are in the political domain. Furthermore, these claims and speculation are clearly reflected as such; they are not presented as matters of fact.
3.2.3. However, any political actors who are implicated in such claims and speculation must be given an opportunity to respond. This aspect will be addressed separately in relation to Clause 1.8.
3.3. Clause 1.3: The complainants state that the article does not identify repeated speculative assertions as opinion (point 2.3). However, the examples that they cite do not support their argument.
3.3.1. The reference to “… whether his relationship with the world’s largest market for abalone and lion bone could have something to do with the unexplained decision to axe Dion George …” is clearly preceded by the words“… claims doing the rounds within the DA over Steenhuisen’s alleged increasing chumminess with China, which has prompted speculation …” (my emphases).
3.3.2. There is therefore no substance in the complaint that this sentence does not clearly distinguish speculation from fact.
3.3.3. The same applies to the second example quoted by the complainants in support of their argument: “It is inevitable that … eyebrows will be raised.”
3.3.4. This sentence includes the words “if accurate”. In other words, the example quoted is part of a statement that is qualified; it is not presented as an unequivocal fact.
3.4. Clause 1.7: Once again, the complainants rely on the photograph that was erroneously published of the Minister with a Vietnamese delegation as the basis for part of this complaint (point 2.4).
3.4.1. Such a mistake is indeed regrettable. However, as stated in point 3.1.1, this oversight was – at worst – the result of human error. The publication replaced the photograph when it became aware of the error and published a note informing readers of the initial mistake.
3.4.2. It would be unreasonable to sanction a publication for an error which it corrected as soon as it became aware of it.
3.5. The second part of this complaint contends that the publication does not identify the “verified factual basis” for the insinuations that they believe link the Minister’s lawful trade engagements to wildlife trafficking (points 2.22.1 and 2.22.2).
3.5.1. However, these insinuations are clearly presented as “claims doing the rounds within the DA” and the rest of this sentence is explicitly described as being prompted by speculation.
3.5.2. By so doing, the article adequately meets the requirement of the Press Code that “opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such” (Clause 1.3).
3.5.3. The article does not refer to these claims as verified facts. Accordingly, Clause 1.7 does not apply to this aspect of the complaint.
3.6. Clause 1.8: The complainants claim that the publication is in breach of this clause because it does not disclose what allegations were put to the Department, whether the insinuations of wildlife trafficking were raised and whether adequate time was given to respond (point 2.5.1; also see point 2.23.1).
3.6.1. The Department was first approached for comment on 26 November 2025 and informed the publication the next day that it would respond “soonest”. When no response was forthcoming, the publication followed up on 1 December 2025 (points 2.16 and 2.16.1).
3.6.2. This time, the publication was informed that the Department would not respond to its questions. No reason was offered for the decision.
3.6.3. Based on the above, the complainants were indeed given a reasonable opportunity to respond to Daily Maverick’s questions. For unexplained reasons, though, the complainants were unwilling to engage with the publication on the issues raised in the enquiry.
3.6.4. They cannot now turn around and complain that the publication failed to seek comment and, even more puzzling, that it was “insufficient” for the publication to rely on a refusal to comment (point 2.5.2).
3.7. However, another aspect of the complaint must be considered as well – whether Steenhuisen was specifically asked for comment on “any alleged link to the illicit wildlife trade” (point 2.1.1).
3.7.1. According to the article, its questions were “a legitimate attempt to establish the nature and frequency of Steenhuisen’s travel to China and activities there since he became minister of agriculture” and were motivated by speculation about whether his trade engagements with China were behind George’s dismissal as Environment Minister.
3.7.2. In its response to the complaint, the publication added that its enquiry regarding the Minister’s international travel was in the public interest because it involved taxpayers’ money.
3.7.3. That is all well and good. However, none of the questions directly requested comment from Steenhuisen on speculation that his dealings with China may be related to George’s dismissal.
3.7.4. This is most odd. After all, according to the article, “[t]he reason for the questions” was claims within the DA over the Minister’s alleged increasing friendliness towards China and this, in turn, prompted speculation about whether his relationship with “the world’s largest market for abalone and lion bone” may be related to the decision to fire George.
3.7.5. In the circumstances, there is merit in an argument that this issue – which is at the heart of the article – should have been explicitly put to Steenhuisen, more so because this aspect of the article is of a serious and prejudicial nature.
3.7.6. The point of Clause 1.8 is not merely to approach the subject of critical coverage for comment. The subject of critical coverage must also be given a fair chance to respond to claims or speculation that directly concern him or her.
3.7.7. The publication does not meet this requirement in this instance. As such, the article is in breach of the Press Code.
3.8. Clause 3.3: According to the complainants, the article creates the impression that the Minister may be linked to abalone, lion bone or other illicit wildlife trafficking (point 2.6).
3.8.1. Once again, this complaint relates to the section of the article quoted in point 3.2.1.
3.8.2. And, once again, it is necessary to make the point that the section in question is clearly presented as speculation based on certain claims (point 3.5.1). This part of the article is not presented as a matter of fact.
3.8.3. In this respect, the article takes sufficient care and consideration in a matter which affects an individual’s dignity and reputation.
3.8.4. However, as noted above, the fact that Steenhuisen was not specifically asked to comment on speculation that there may be a link between his trade engagements with China and George’s dismissal is in violation of Clause 1.8.
3.8.5. And, more often than not, a violation of Clause 1.8 results in a violation of Clause 3.3 as well. In fact, according to then Deputy Press Ombud Herman Scholtz in Siyabonga Gama vs Sunday Times, the two clauses must be read in conjunction with each other .[2]
3.8.6. He states “… Clause 1.8 is in my view a general provision to protect the reputation and dignity of a subject of critical reportage. It cannot be isolated from Clause 3 which deals with matters of reputation and dignity in more detail. The clauses must be read together.”
3.8.7. The reason is that failing to give the right of reply to a subject of critical reportage can result in an infringement of that individual’s dignity and reputation because he or she is denied an opportunity to respond to allegations directed at him or her.[3]
3.8.8. Even though it is undeniably in the public interest to report on certain matters, Clause 3.3 includes the important rider that an article must be “prepared in accordance with acceptable principles of journalistic conduct” (sub-clause 3.3.4).
3.8.9. In this regard, the article fails to adequately comply with the Press Code because Steenhuisen was not specifically asked to comment on speculation about a possible link between his dealings with China and George’s dismissal as Environment Minister.
3.9. Clause 10.1: This complaint also relates to the caption of the photograph that was erroneously published of Steenhuisen with the Vietnamese delegation (point 2.7).
3.9.1. As stated previously, the complainants attempt to make far too much of this mistake. They insist that the error was made to push a certain narrative, namely that Steenhuisen had questionable dealings with China (point 2.7.2).
3.9.2. There are insufficient grounds for this complaint, however, because other photographs were available of the Minister meeting Chinese delegations and also because the publication immediately replaced the photograph of Steenhuisen with the Vietnamese delegation when it became aware of the error.
3.9.3. Furthermore, the complainants object to the headline on the grounds that it gives the impression that Steenhuisen avoided responding to certain questions regarding improper conduct on his part (point 2.7.2). There is little merit in this complaint.
3.9.4. Firstly, the Department of Agriculture informed the publication that it would not respond to its questions about the Minister’s trade engagements with the Chinese government and his trips to that country.
3.9.5. Secondly, the DA declined to respond to a request by the NSPCA to provide reasons for replacing George with Aucamp as Environment Minister.
3.9.6. Thirdly, the publication approached Zille regarding the DA’s decision not to accede to the NSPCA’s request. It was informed that the association did not have the right to request reasons in a letter, but could do so via a PAIA request or through litigation.
3.9.7. In view of the above, there are sufficient grounds to justify the headline. According to Clause 10.1, the headline should give “a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report”. In this case, the headline meets this obligation.
3.10. Clause 10.2: The photograph of Steenhuisen with the Vietnamese delegation is once again the subject of this complaint (point 2.8). However, there is no merit in the complainants’ argument that the photograph distorts the factual basis of the article.
3.10.1. As stated under point 3.9.2, other photographs were available of Steenhuisen meeting Chinese officials and the publication replaced the photograph of Steenhuisen meeting the Vietnamese delegation when it became aware of the error.
3.10.2. There are therefore insufficient grounds for this complaint. Once again, the complainants attempt to attribute mischievous intent to what appears to be no more than an oversight.
- Findings
Clause 1.1: The complaint that the article is in breach of this clause is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.1.1 to 3.2.2 of my Discussion.
Clause 1.3: The complaint that the article is in breach of this clause is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.3 to 3.3.4 of my Discussion.
Clause 1.7: The complaint that the article is in breach of this clause is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.4.1 to 3.5.3 of my Discussion.
Clause 1.8: The complaint that the article is in breach of this clause is dismissed in one respect for the reasons outlined in points 3.6.1 to 3.6.4 of my Discussion.
The complaint that the article is in breach of this clause is upheld in one respect for the reasons set out in points 3.7 to 3.7.7 of my Discussion.
Clause 3.3: The complaint that the article is in breach of this clause is dismissed in one respect for the reasons outlined in points 3.8.1 to 3.8.3 of my Discussion.
The complaint that the article is in breach of this clause is upheld in one respect for the reasons outlined in points 3.8.4 to 3.8.9 of my Discussion.
Clause 10.1: The complaint that the article is in breach of this clause is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.9.1 to 3.9.7 of my Discussion.
Clause 10.2: The complaint that the article is in breach of this clause is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.10 to 3.10.2 of my Discussion.
Firstly, Daily Maverick is required to publish an apology for breaching Clauses 1.8 and 3.3.
Secondly, Daily Maverick should give Steenhuisen the right to reply on speculation within the DA that George’s dismissal as Environment Minister may be linked to Steenhuisen’s trade engagements with China’s government. If there is a dispute between the parties about the content and length of the reply, this should be referred to me for settlement.
Thirdly, the apology and the right of reply should be approved by me prior to publication.
Fourthly, the respondent must update the article and should publish a note under the headline: “NOTE: This article has been updated. See Editor’s Note below, including an apology to John Steenhuisen.” The Editor’s Note should state when and how the article has been updated, and should include the full apology to Steenhuisen as directed above as well as his right of reply.
Fifthly, the 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 Daily Maverick’ landing page for 24 hours as well as on all its platforms where the article was published;
- be published with a headline including the words “apology” and “John Steenhuisen” or “Steenhuisen”;
- be published online on the landing page with a link to the original 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.
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
11 March 2026
[1] This reference is presumably to Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.
[2] See https://presscouncil.org,za/ 2021/06/16/siyabonga-gama-vs-sunday-times/
[3] See https://presscouncil.org,za/ /2023/11/30/jeanette-hunter-vs-news24/