Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Friedmann & EWT vs City Press

, ,

Complaint 32396

Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud

Date of publication:

16 September 2025

Headline of publication:

“SANParks board member accused of conflict regarding multi-million GEF project”

Link: https://www.news24.com/citypress/news/sanparks-board-member-accused-of-conflict-regarding-multimillion-rand-gef-project-20250916-0833

Author: Timothy Molobi

Particulars

  1. Rupert Candy Attorneys lodged a complaint against the above article on 21 October 2025, on behalf of Yolan Friedmann and the Endangered Wildlife Trust. The complaint came with several attachments, including: questions the reporter sent to the complainant; questions and responses from SANParks; declarations of interest forms signed by Friedmann; an earlier letter of demand sent to City Press, in which the complainant demanded a complete retraction of the published article and an apology; and City Press’s response, declining to retract but offering a right of reply.
  2. The complaint was filed a few days outside the ordinary time limits, but the Public Advocate (PA) condoned the late submission.
  3. City Press lodged a response to the PCSA complaint on 5 December, in which they repeated their response to the letter of demand.
  4. The PA advised the complainants to accept the offer of a right of reply, saying he saw little chance of success in pursuing the complaint. However, the complainants insisted on pursuing the matter and filed a rejoinder on 5 February 2026.
  5. I take into account the various submissions filed in this matter, including points raised in the email exchanges.

The article

  1. The article reports that Friedmann served on a sub-committee of the SA National Parks (SANParks) set up to refine a project under the Global Environment Facility and align it with the organisation’s Vision 2040. She is a board member of SANParks and also chief Executive of the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT).
  2. The article says there were accusations of a conflict of interest as she did not recuse herself even though her organisation, the EWT, was being considered as a possible strategic partner, quoting an unidentified insider to that effect.
  3. The article outlines legal provisions governing board members’ possible conflicts of interest, and quotes SANParks spokesperson JP Louw as saying Friedmann’s actions could be seen as a conflict of interest. Louw is also quoted as pointing out that she was excused from the final decision on budget as EWT was mentioned in the board pack as a potential strategic partner. In addition, the board had appointed an oversight committee to supervise the evaluation of strategic partners, and that process was still ongoing.
  4. The article also says that Friedmann did not respond to a list of questions sent to her.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is that the article breaches clauses 1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8, and 3.3 of the Press Code in multiple respects.

Complaint: Inaccurate reporting

Arguments

  1. The complainant argues that the claim that she was accused of a conflict of interest is untrue as she was not so accused.
  2. The statement that she was on a subcommittee refining the project while the EWT was considered a possible strategic partner is also false, she argues. The work on the sub-committee ended before EWT began to be considered as a possible strategic partner.
  3. The statement that she failed to recuse herself from deliberations is similarly untruthful, as the SANParks statement confirmed that she recused herself from the final vote on the matter.
  4. The statement that there is a controversy as a result of these claims is false as the underlying claims are false. Any controversy is purely due to the article itself, the complaint says. In addition, the SANParks board required members to declare any possible conflicts, and Friedmann’s declarations about her involvement in the EWT and other organisations were attached.
  5. The statement that she gained an unfair advantage by failing to recuse herself is similarly untrue. The complaint gives details of further developments after the ad-hoc committee the complainant was a member of was disbanded. It points out that the EWT was not awarded any work related to the project. In fact, final decisions on the project have not yet been taken.
  6. The statement that she would have developed a deeper insight into SANParks requirements was untrue as the project outline was developed in collaboration with several NGOs and was therefore common knowledge. The statement should have been attributed to Louw.
  7. The statement that her involvement led to the process’s integrity being questioned is also false as the organisation has systems in place to ensure integrity.
  8. The statement that the behaviour could be tantamount to insider trading is similarly untrue as she was not accused of, investigated for or found guilty of the offence. The SANParks statement on the subject is merely hypothetical.
  9. The respondents’ reply relies on the response sent to the letter of demand. Essentially, the respondents argue that the information in the article is substantially confirmed by the reply from Louw of SANParks, which it provides in full. Also, the complainant was given the opportunity to reply and did not take it up. She cannot now contest the truthfulness of the claims. Nevertheless, City Press is prepared to publish a right of reply.
  10. In the rejoinder, the complainants argue again that the reporting is untrue. A table is presented comparing the reported statements to the statement from Louw, identifying what it argues are significant differences.
  11. The complainants also set out a process that would be followed in the case of misconduct by a board member and argue that the statement that she is accused of improper behaviour is untrue because the board did not make such an accusation.
  12. Claims made by the anonymous insider should have been corroborated, the complainants say.

Discussion

  1. The question whether the complainants were afforded an adequate opportunity to respond to the claims made in the report is critical, and I will return to it below. However, it is also necessary to consider separately whether there was sufficient basis for reporting the claims.
  2. The complainant makes much of the use of the term “accused”, arguing that as no formal accusation was made by the board, the term cannot be used. That is clearly not so. In common usage, the term is not restricted to circumstances where it is formal.  In this case, the accusation is made by an insider.
  3. In addition, the official organisational statement is that her behaviour “may be deemed to constitute a conflict of interest”, which any reader would understand to indicate that the organisation thought there was a potential problem with her participation.
  4. A material factual point is made in the complainants’ submissions, and that is that the ad hoc committee she worked in ended its activity well before any consideration was given to possible strategic partners.
  5. It would have been simple for her to point this out when she was approached for comment, but she did not do so.
  6. It would also have been simple for SANParks to make the point, but they did not do so either.
  7. The SANParks statement did, however, refer to the fact that Friedmann would have had access to the budget and other insights into the organisation’s approach to the project at regular board meetings. In other words, it is not just the ad hoc committee and the final budget vote that are relevant, according to the SANParks statement.
  8. The statement also pointed to various measures taken to protect the integrity of the process of appointing partners, and these points are reflected in the report.
  9. I have looked closely at the other areas identified in the rejoinder as showing what the complainant sees as significant differences between the SANParks statement and the published report, but find that none of the differences are significant enough to undermine the reporting.
  10. In some areas, the complaint objects to statements that are simply factual, like that a failure to declare a conflict could constitute misconduct.
  11. Others are clearly related to comments by the insider, such as ones questioning the integrity of the process.
  12. Yet others are identifiable as interpretations by the reporter, such as the one likening the claimed behaviour to insider trading. In addition, the SANParks response to a question on insider trading confirms it as a “valid concern”, referencing Friedmann directly.
  13. The fact that Friedmann recused herself from the final budget vote is reflected in the report. The reference to a failure to recuse herself is clearly a reference to the earlier work of the sub-committee.
  14. The use of the term controversy is justifiable under the circumstances.
  15. Overall, the SANParks statement provides sufficient corroboration of the insider’s claims, and the report therefore accurately reflects the information at its disposal.

Finding

  1. I find that the article does not breach the Press Code’s provisions on reporting accurate, verified information.

Complaint: Failure to obtain comment

Arguments

  1. The complainant confirms having received a list of questions from the reporter, adding she elected not to respond. Nevertheless, she says she was not given an opportunity to respond to the claims against her.
  2. She argues that the accusation of “insider trading” was not included in the list of questions put to her.
  3. The respondents argue that the questions sent provided adequate opportunity to respond.
  4. In the rejoinder, the complainants identify several points not explicitly put to Friedmann, or to SANParks or the EWT.
  5. She also says she did not respond, first, as she wanted to consult SANParks, the board and Minister; that she was unaware that management was preparing a response; and that she was then instructed by the Minister not to respond.
  6. She also says that the inquiry was incorrectly directed at SANParks management rather than the board.
  7. Furthermore, she says that the offer of a right of reply is not an appropriate remedy as it would reignite the accusations and cause more damage. She also says that she believes that any statements she makes would be distorted by the newspaper. Rather, she wants the PCSA to rule that the article must be withdrawn in order to put the matter to rest.

Discussion

  1. Despite the complainants’ efforts to identify gaps, I cannot find significant omissions in the points and questions put to Friedmann. The accusations against her are clearly and comprehensively identified, and she was given adequate opportunity to frame a response.
  2. Though the phrase “insider trading” did not occur in the questions, she was asked whether her involvement in the ad hoc committee did not constitute a conflict of interest. In my view, that adequately covers the question. Other gaps noted by the complaint are either minor or arise from misreading statements made.
  3. It is a pity that the Minister advised her not to respond, but this cannot be the responsibility of City Press.
  4. Sending questions to the organisation’s communications office was appropriate. It was up to SANParks, through Louw and his office, to ensure the statement reflected the organisation’s position as a whole, including its board.
  5. It is also material that the respondent offered the complainants a right of reply. It is of course up to Friedmann and the EWT whether they take up the offer or not, but it would have offered an opportunity to place their version before the public.  As for her belief that the newspaper would distort her position, the PA pointed out in earlier correspondence the PCSA would play a role in ensuring the published text is acceptable to all parties.
  6. As for obtaining comment from the EWT, Friedmann would have been in a good position to answer on behalf of the organisation as she is the CEO, or could have referred the reporter to a spokesperson if she considered it appropriate. The present complaint was lodged by Friedmann, underlining the fact that she is able to act on behalf of the EWT.
  7. The newspaper took sufficient steps to secure a response from the complainant.

Finding

  1. I find that the article did not breach Clause 1.8 by failing to offer the complainants adequate opportunity to put forward their version of events.
  • Complaint: Failure to take adequate care in matters involving dignity and reputation

Arguments

  1. The complaint is that references to the integrity of the process being questioned, misconduct and insider trading are false and reflect on the complainant’s reputation. Publishing the statements therefore breaches Clause 3.3 of the Press Code, which requires publications to “exercise care and considerations in matters involving dignity and reputation”.
  2. The respondents do not respond specifically to this aspect of the complaint, restricting themselves to the defence that they offered Friedmann sufficient opportunity to respond.
  3. The rejoinder does not return to the point either.

Discussion

  1. Clause 3.3 of the Press Code provides that an individual’s rights to dignity and reputation may be “overridden only if it is in the public interest and” and one of several conditions are met. In the context of this complaint, the fourth condition (Clause 3.3.4) is relevant, which says publication is acceptable if “it was reasonable for the information to be communicated because it was prepared in accordance with acceptable principles of journalistic conduct”.
  2. There is no question that issues of governance at an important public entity like SANParks are of public interest.
  3. Furthermore, I have already ruled that the article was based on facts sufficiently corroborated and that the complainant was given sufficient opportunity to respond. In other words, it was prepared in accordance with acceptable principles of journalistic conduct.
  • Ruling
  1. I find that the article did not breach Clause 3.3 by publishing critical comments about the complainant.

Finding

  1. I dismiss the complaint that the article breached clauses 1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8, and 3.3 of the Press Code.
  2. Appeal
  3. 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@presscouncilsa.org.za

Ruling by
Franz Krüger, Deputy Press Ombud
24 March 2026

 

Related Posts