Veon Bock vs Mail & Guardian
Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August
1 April 2026
Finding: Complaint 000514
Request for condonation
Publication (print): Mail & Guardian
Author: Matuma Letsoalo
Article 1:
Headline: Caught on camera: How bribe deal went down
Date of publication: 1 April 2010
Article 2:
Headline: Police set to probe M&G ‘briber’
Date of publication: 9 April 2010
Video: Mail & Guardian
Title: M&G bribe: How we stung the pension company
https://youtu.be/31Jbi8RMdHw?si=7aQa8gkZbRMFFSxU[1]
Date uploaded: 7 April 2010
Particulars
This finding is based on a written appeal by Mr Veon Bock on 17 February 2026 against the decision by the Public Advocate, Mr Thabo Leshilo, not to condone a late complaint against Mail & Guardian.
Because 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 Bock’s complaint. It is confined to his request for condonation of the late submission of his complaint.
- Background to applicant’s request
1.1. The applicant submits that a series of articles first published in April 2010 by Mail & Guardian, and subsequently republished by News24, TimesLive, The New York Times, The Media Online and other outlets, is defamatory.
1.1.1. In addition, Mail & Guardian uploaded a video which the applicant says falsely portrays him as guilty of a crime.
1.1.2. The applicant maintains that, although the articles are more than 15 years old, they remain accessible online. As such, he says, they cause ongoing and serious reputational harm and therefore asks for these articles and the video to be removed.
1.2. The applicant says that he was unaware at the time of publication of the procedures and time limits for recourse to the Press Ombud.
1.2.1. He adds that he did not consent to the publication of the articles nor was he given a right of reply. He says he only came to fully appreciate “the scale of damage and the proper avenues of redress in recent years”.
1.3. The applicant further points out that the journalist who authored the articles was dismissed by the publication in 2018 for what he describes as serious ethical breaches. According to him, these breaches were committed during the same period in 2010 when the allegations were published about him.
1.3.1. He adds that a ruling by the Press Ombud – namely Matuma Lestsoalo vs Daily Maverick – suggests that the journalist was prone to “not telling the whole truth”.
1.3.2. He says this fact was unavailable at the time of publication and substantially undermines the credibility of the original reporting. Accordingly, he believes, this warrants a reassessment of the ongoing harm caused by the allegations against him.
1.4. The applicant further contends that the principle of the “right to be forgotten” is recognised internationally and supports the view that “outdated, unsubstantiated, and harmful material should not remain accessible indefinitely, especially where it violates dignity, reputation, and privacy”.
1.4.1. He submits that, on these grounds, the delay in lodging his complaint should not prevent his complaint from being considered.
1.5. The applicant reiterates his argument that the articles falsely claim that he was the subject of a criminal process by implying that he broke a South African law. He denies this and says he was never arrested, charged or prosecuted in relation to these allegations.
1.5.1. He contends that the articles infringe his constitutional rights to dignity and a fair hearing and submits that the Protection of Personal Information Act (Popia) is violated by the continued dissemination of his personal data without his consent or any lawful basis.
1.5.2. He again refers to the “right to be forgotten” and says the continued online publication of these articles causes ongoing reputational harm and their removal is justified in line with international data protection principles.
1.5.3. In addition, he says, the continued availability of these articles and the video undermine the principles of balance and fairness. He argues that the enduring harm of the articles and video suggests a failure “to weigh that balance”.
1.5.4. The applicant maintains that Mail & Guardian has not provided credible evidence in support of its assertions despite the serious allegations of criminal behaviour. He says there is no documentary evidence to support the assertions.
1.6. The applicant requests the Press Ombud to make a finding that the Mail & Guardian article and its continued online publication breach the Press Council’s Code of Ethics. In addition, he requests a retraction and the removal of the articles and video from the Mail & Guardian website as well as from the online websites and archives of other publishers.
1.6.1. He states that this matter is “not about re-litigating history”, but about addressing ongoing harm to his dignity and reputation by false and defamatory reporting that continues to be accessible and injurious more than 15 years later.
1.6.2. He urges the Press Ombud to exercise discretion to consider his complaint despite its age “in the interest of justice, accountability, the protection of human dignity, balance and the right to be forgotten”.
- Public Advocate’s decision
2.1. In his response, the Public Advocate states that the Press Council’s Complaints Procedures require a complaint to be made as soon as possible, but not later than 20 working days after the date of publication that gave rise to the complaint.
2.1.1. He points out that the article that is the subject of complaint in this instance was published in 2010 – “making it 16 years late”.
2.2. The Public Advocate informed the applicant that the idea behind the Press Council’s complaints process was to settle disputes expeditiously. Complainants must therefore provide satisfactory reasons for the late submission of complaints.
2.2.1. He referred to the Appeal Panel decision, Spotlight Publications vs Sadmon Projects and Consulting cc, in which the Press Council’s Chair of Appeals, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, states: “The longer a delay, the more cogent the explanation should be.”[2]
2.2.2. The Public Advocate maintains that the applicant’s reasons for the inordinate delay in lodging a complaint – namely current and ongoing harm, ignorance of Press Council procedures, evidence of the reporter’s unreliability and the principle of the “right to be forgotten” – do not hold water.
2.2.3. He therefore declined to accept the complaint and believes that it would set a “very bad” precedent if he were to accept it despite the extraordinary lateness and unsatisfactory explanation.
2.2.4. He advised the applicant to apply to the Press Ombud panel for condonation of such a late complaint. However, he informed him that he does not see any prospects of success.
- Applicant’s request for condonation
3.1. In response to the Public Advocate’s decision, the applicant submitted a formal request for condonation of the late submission of his complaint.
3.1.1. He says he only recently came to appreciate the full weight and cumulative impact of “the ongoing digital accessibility, tagging of his name and AI-based reproduction of the allegations”.
3.1.2. He states that the continued presence of the articles has also impaired his ability to secure employment over an extended period and has adversely affecting his dignity as well.
3.2. The applicant acknowledges that, although the complaint falls outside the 20-day period for submissions, certain “substantive and ongoing issues remain at stake”.
3.2.1. These issues include whether the continued digital availability of “materially defective reporting constitutes a continuing harm and whether such harm warrants scrutiny notwithstanding the passage of time”.
3.2.2. He argues that the ethical obligations imposed by the Press Code are not time-bound and should apply for as long as the article in dispute remains accessible and continues to affect those concerned.
3.3. The applicant again refers to certain findings against the author of the article and suggests that these alter the context in which the articles in question must be assessed. He says that investigations identified serious ethical breaches during 2010 – “the same period in which the impugned allegations of criminality concerning the applicant were published”.
3.3.1. He says that, together with the Press Ombud ruling Matuma Letsoalo vs Daily Maverick, the findings referred to in point 3.3 raise serious concerns about the credibility of the journalist’s reporting.
3.3.2. He also claims that a Constitutional Court ruling, Botha v Smuts (2024/2025), recognises that “digital permanence may give rise to ongoing harm, with each instance of access constituting a fresh act of publication”.
3.3.3. Moreover, the continued tagging of his name by Mail & Guardian actively links him to the articles in question and thereby amplifies their visibility. This tagging is not incidental, he says, and constitutes continuing publication.
3.3.4. He claims that such a deliberate linkage raises concerns under Popia and is, furthermore, inconsistent with the principles of avoiding unjustified harm and maintaining balance as required by the Press Code.
3.3.5. The applicant maintains that, in these circumstances, his complaint cannot properly be described as “late” in the conventional sense. Unlike print, he says, digital publication is inherently ongoing.
3.3.6. 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’”.
- Discussion
4.1. The applicant provides four reasons to support his request for condonation of his complaint against two articles published by Mail & Guardian in April 2010. Only one of the reasons attempts to explain why the complaint is so late. The other three reasons are attempts to justify condonation of such a late complaint.
4.1.1. Firstly, the applicant claims a lack of knowledge about the procedures and time limits for recourse to the Press Ombud at the time when the articles were published (point 1.2).
4.1.2. However, to condone a late application solely on the grounds of ignorance would be at odds with one of the main reasons behind the establishment of the Press Council and its Press Ombud office – to provide a mechanism through which complaints can be addressed
expeditiously.[3]
4.1.3. To accept a complaint that goes back 16 years would defeat this purpose. As Judge Bernard Ngoepe notes in his Appeal Decision – Russell Darren Rodez vs Media24: “An entertainment of a complaint lodged … hopelessly out of time would bring the process of the adjudication of complaints into disrepute.”[4]
4.1.4. It would also be impracticable to entertain such a late complaint. That would place an unfair obligation on a publication if it were routinely expected to attend to complaints going back several years.
4.1.5. This would set an unhealthy precedent and may open the door to a flood of complaints about articles that were published several years ago.
4.1.6. It is precisely to prevent such an undesirable outcome that the Press Council’s Complaints Procedures specifies that complaints should be made within 20 working days of the publication of an article that is the subject of a dispute.
4.1.7. In view of the above considerations, the applicant’s request for condonation cannot be granted.
4.2. Secondly, the applicant refers to the ongoing harm caused by the fact that the articles in question are available online (point 1.1.2).
4.2.1. However, the same concerns that were raised under 4.1 above also applies here. To condone such an extraordinarily late complaint would be to open a Pandora’s box and create an untenable situation.
4.2.2. Deputy Press Ombud Franz Krüger makes the same point in Mthethwa vs Oudtshoorn Courant: “Accepting ongoing availability as grounds for late complaint would open the door to complaints against practically any material published online, rendering the requirements for timeous complaint pointless.”[5]
4.2.3. And while he is mindful of the fact that the nature of online publication is that it persists, he adds: “Late discovery of the ongoing availability of the reports does not constitute sufficient reason to condone the late submission.”
4.2.4. Although the Press Council’s Complaints Procedures does allow the Press Ombuds some latitude on late submissions in certain circumstances, a situation cannot be allowed where time limits are exceeded without reasonable justification.
4.2.5. In this instance, to condone the gap between 20 working days after the date of publication of the articles that give rise to a complaint and 16 years after the date of publication would be a serious and quite unprecedented departure from the time frame prescribed in these procedures.
4.2.6. And, in the absence of any compelling reason to do so, there is no justification for making an exception in this instance and granting the applicant’s request for condonation.
4.3. Thirdly, the applicant states that the “right to be forgotten” is increasingly recognised internationally (points 1.4 and 1.5.2) and refers to Article 17 of the European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation as an example.
4.3.1. This argument overlaps with that made in point 4.2, namely that the continued online availability of the articles results in ongoing harm and should therefore be removed.
4.3.2. However, this is an attempt to justify condonation of an extremely late complaint rather than offering an acceptable reason why the complaint was late in the first place.
4.3.3. In any event, as the applicant acknowledges, “we are not domiciled in the EU”, so the General Data Protection Regulation does not apply in South Africa.
4.3.4. The closest equivalent in South Africa is the Protection of Personal Information Act. And, according to Section 7(1), this law generally does not apply when personal information is processed solely for the purpose of journalistic expression.[6]
4.4. As for the fourth reason, it is difficult to see how the 2018 Press Council complaint, Matuma Letsoalo vs Daily Maverick,[7] undermines the credibility of the two articles published about the applicant eight years earlier (point 1.3.1).
4.4.1. For one, the complaint was dismissed by then Press Ombud Johan Retief on the grounds that Mail & Guardian was already investigating whether there was a conflict of interest in its then political editor being involved in conducting business with the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) in a 2010 tender deal.
4.4.2. In other words, the Press Ombud did not make a pronouncement on the merits of the complaint. He states quite clearly: “We cannot have two investigations into the same matter, running parallel with each other.”
4.4.3. Furthermore, even though Mail & Guardian subsequently found that there was indeed a conflict of interest in the involvement of the journalist in the Prasa deal, this does not necessarily mean that there are ethical questions about each and every report that he published in 2010.
4.4.4. To draw such a conclusion would be unreasonable and, moreover, no evidence is presented in support of such a claim.
- Finding
For the reasons outlined under points 4.1 to 4.4 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
1 April 2026
[1] YouTube blocked access to the video in South Africa after the applicant requested its removal on the grounds that it is defamatory.
[2] See https://presscouncilsa.org.za2020/03/13/appeal-hearing-decision-spotlight-publications-and-sadmon-projects-and-consulting-cc/
[3] See https://presscouncilsa.org.za/2022/01/13/request-to-reopen-case-sedzani-mudau-vs-city-press/ and 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/
[5] https://presscouncilsa.org.za/2026/04/01/mthethwa-vs-outshoorn-courant/
[6] https://popia.co.za/section-7-exclusion-for-journalistic-literary-or-artistic-purposes/
[7] https://presscouncil.org,za/2018/12/03/matuma-letsoalo-vs-daily-maverick/