Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Wildlife Ranching South Africa NPC (WRSA) and others v Daily Maverick-(A)

, ,

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint:  32398 (A)

Author: Don Pinnock

Headline: The sacking of Dion George — how a progressive minister is being taken down by the wildlife breeder

Complainants: Wildlife Ranching South Africa (WRSA)

: Richard York (the CEO of WRSA)

: Colin Engelbrecht (current board chairman of the board of directors)

: Gerhard Heyneke (former board chairman)

Publication Date: 9 November 2025

Date lodged: 21 November 2025

Link to article:

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2025-11-09-sacking-of-dion-george-how-a-progressive-minister-is-being-taken-down-by-the-wildlife-breeders/

Particulars

  1. I have received complaints about the two articles about the same matter and have adjudicated them separately (see complaint numbers 32398 – A, and 32398 – B).
  2. This finding is based on correspondence by Enslin Liam from the legal firm kwv inc, on behalf of the complainants, and on a reply by the Deputy Editor of Daily Maverick, Anso Thom.

The text

  1. On top of the text a disclaimer reads: “This article is an Analysis. It goes beyond the basic facts of a news story to provide deeper context, explanation and interpretation. While it may include the author’s judgment and expertise, it aims to be more objective.”
  2. The article says that the strongest defender of South Africa’s National Elephant Heritage Strategy, who is also the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Dion George, has become a target as he was facing a potential firing – “the culmination of a campaign by powerful wildlife interests to recapture the department and reverse two decades of reform”.
  3. Citing “underperformance” of George’s performance, DA leader John Steenhuisen reportedly asked President Cyril Ramaphosa to replace him with Willie Aucamp, “a long-time ally of the wildlife-ranching and hunting lobby”.
  4. This is the central point of the text: “As Environment Minister, Aucamp would be expected to adjudicate policies that directly affect the profitability of game-breeding and hunting operations – an impossible separation of powers in practice and optics.”
  5. The text continues: “If this appointment goes ahead, South Africa’s environmental authority will, for the first time, be run by someone whose personal and political base depends on the commercial exploitation of wildlife. That is not reform. It is capture.”
  6. The article mentions WRSA as one of the parties of interest to oust George and replace him with Aucamp. WRSA is one of the members of the Sustainable Use Coalition of Southern Africa (SUCo-SA) – with which Aucamp has reportedly identified him.
  7. A picture of Aucamp and the complainants was also published, with a WRSA banner in the background.

The complaint

In general

  1. WRSA says the disclaimer “amplifies the impact of the article’s accusations by positioning them as trustworthy, factually correct, and contextually grounded analysis rather than ideological assertion, thereby enhancing the defamatory sting of the narrative constructed against the complainants”.
  2. The article, the complainants continue, portrays the WRSA and other SUCo-SA members as direct antagonists to George’s alleged reformist agenda, alleging that they conspired to bring about his removal in order to install a “pliant” or “industry-friendly” successor – creating the distinct impression that they lead, or at least participate, in a powerful and self-serving coalition that has infiltrated the department, rewritten national conservation strategies, and corrupted the policy environment for their own enrichment.
  3. They add that the picture insinuates that Aucamp is the complainants’ ally (through whom the wildlife industry would consolidate control of environmental governance).
  4. The gist and innuendo of the article, read as a whole, are unmistakable and deeply injurious to the complainants. It is false in that:
  • they and their affiliates are the architects of an undemocratic and deceitful plot to unseat a sitting minister;
  • they are abusing supposed powerful positions and influence to subvert public institutions for private commercial interests;
  • they have acted in bad faith, employing rehearsed tactics of capture and manipulation learned through previous policy engagements; and
  • their actions amount to the active capture of the department – a grave allegation in the South African constitutional context, where “state capture” denotes systemic corruption, betrayal of public trust, and the erosion of democratic accountability.
  1. WRSA says that, had DM fulfilled its duty to verify facts, it would have immediately learned that the following material information contradicts the article’s central insinuations:
  • They submit they have no longstanding, intimate, or strategically aligned relationship with Aucamp, as the article seeks to imply. The first time they met Aucamp was in April 2025 at a DA agricultural roadshow. There he was introduced to the complainants and indicated that, as a member of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, he wished to understand the concerns of the wildlife ranching sector better and would like to assist the industry where appropriate and possible. “This was the extent of the engagement”; and
  • Aucamp’s only interactions with the WRSA since then have been in that official, political and parliamentary capacity. He has since been invited to exactly one WRSA event (its AGM) – which is when the photograph used in the article was taken.
  1. WRSA concludes that the primary “evidence” relied upon by the article appears to be:
  • information or statements from persons or organisations openly hostile to the game-ranching sector; and
  • two Facebook posts by Aucamp – one concerning the DA agricultural roadshow (the first meeting with the complainants) and the second being the photograph taken at the WRSA annual conference dinner.

In particular

  1. The following statements/insinuations are disputed:
Statements in dispute Complaint
“His (George’s) potential firing is the culmination of a campaign by private wildlife interests to recapture the department and reverse two decades of reform.” ·       Speculation, opinion are presented as “objective” and factual

·       Facts not properly verified
“The story of how the Elephant Indaba was staged and spliced into the Heritage Strategy is not a sideshow, it’s the mechanism of capture itself.” ·       Innuendo of state capture

·       No comment asked

·       Unsubstantiated

·       Speculation presented as fact
After a final workshop which intended to finally close legislation relating to the captive lion industry: “Days later came the call to remove George. It looks far less like a review than an act of retaliation.” ·       Factually inaccurate innuendo

·       Ignoring attempts to engage with George and invitations to WRSA annual conference and dinner
“He (Aucamp) has proudly identified himself with the Sustainable Use Coalition of Southern Africa, whose membership includes Wildlife Ranching South Africa… Collectively these groups sit at the commercial ‘use’ sector of South African wildlife… To install a politician so closely aligned with that coalition would erase the line between regulator and regulated, between conservation and commerce…

If his (Aucamp’s) appointment goes ahead, South Africa’s authority will, for the first time, be run by someone whose personal and political base depends on the commercial exploitation of wildlife. That is not reform. It is capture.

 ·       By implication WRSA is implied as part of the alleged group responsible for the state capture of the minister and the department

·       Aucamp is not “closely aligned”

·       It tries to sell false allegations of state capture and collusion by the WRSA and the innuendo that Aucamp is in their pocket or has been captured by that group
“The mechanism of capture was already rehearsed through the Elephant Heritage Strategy… The Indaba … was a closed gathering dominated by figures with long histories in trophy hunting and consumptive use.” ·       Innuendo that they have been plotting to capture the department

·       Their participation in policy formulation is undemocratic
“It is a system of manufactured emergencies and monetised solutions. And when one minister refused to play along, he was removed.” (Together with a picture of the complainants in front of a WRSA banner). ·       The picture directly links the complainants to the innuendo of state capture

·       No comment sought, no context to the picture

·       Harmful to the WRSA’s and the complainants’ reputation
The Elephant Indaba was a test case. It showed how easily a small, well-connected lobby can infiltrate a policy process, rewrite its intent and emerge claiming consensus. The proposed appointment of Aucamp would take that test nationally. It would effectively put the same lobby directly in charge of the department. ·       Unbalanced, biased, inaccurate

·       No comment sought

·       False and defamatory

·       Innuendo that complainants form part of this undemocratic lobby seeking to effect state capture
“Aucamp’s close public association with organisations that profit from the killing, breeding and export of wildlife is not incidental; it’s central. As minister, he would be in a position to shape regulations, authorise quotas and influence enforcement – all while standing to gain politically from the same industry… That is the very definition of departmental capture: when the institution meant to regulate and industry begins to serve it instead.” ·       False, unconfirmed allegations

·       No comment sought

·       Personal opinions about allegations that are presented as facts
“George’s removal from the environmental portfolio would be the political expression of the same capture that rewrote the Elephant Strategy. His removal tells every honest official that integrity is dangerous, every scientist that evidence can be overridden and every citizen that policy can be bought. His departure would not merely be a reshuffle; it is a warning. It signals to industry that resistance will be punished and to the public that the lines between conservation and commerce have all but dissolved. The elephants will survive another bad cycle of ministers. The question is whether our democracy can survive the loss of integrity that allows this kind of capture to flourish – a system where the minister for the environment may soon also be the minister for monetising wildlife. That is not stewardship. It is the endgame of capture.” ·       Innuendo that anyone who associates with the complainant effectively associates with undemocratic, dangerous, dishonest actors who punish honest public officials

·       Factually unbalanced regarding the reasons for George’s removal, preferring to paint the complainants as scapegoats who are to blame for the removal of the competent minister

·       Failing to investigate the actual allegations regarding George in any meaningful way.

·       Innuendo that the complainants form part of a racket of lobby groups that have so much power in government that they can “punish” a minister who does not follow their policy position, and that they are undemocratic, dangerous and dishonest brokers

·       No comment sought, despite the potential harm to their reputations.

 

  1. WRSA says the following sections of the Press Code were breached: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8 and 3.3.
  2. The complainants seek a:
  • full retraction of:
    • the article, including the removal of all identifying information, including photographs and names, of the complainants as contained in the article from all printed or online platforms;
    • all references to the article in later articles published by the publication; and
  • a prominent apology directed towards the complainants be published across all printed and online platforms.

Daily Maverick replies

‘Analysis’

  1. DM points out that the article is expressly labelled “Analysis” and that it appears in a context where it routinely distinguishes news from analysis, commentary and op-ed. “Reasonable readers of DM understand that ‘Analysis’ is interpretive, argumentative and value-laden, even when grounded in facts” – all in line with Section 6 and Section 7 of the Press Code.
  2. Anso Thom says George’s policy decisions (such as lion bone quota at zero), the long-running conflicts with predator breeders and ranchers, Steenhuisen’s push to replace George with Aucamp, the latter’s alignment with the hunting/breeding sector, and civil-society backlash are all supported by official documents, court cases, and the complainants’ own public statements.

Core allegation: Is ‘the campaign by powerful wildlife interests’ invented?

  1. Thom says WRSA brought a High Court application against George to force the minister to disclose decision-making records and challenge aspects of the trophy-hunting quota process for elephant, black rhino and leopard.
  2. Furthermore, the Department and Minister publicly acknowledged recent public statements by WRSA “that misrepresent the legal process before the High Court regarding the 2024 and 2025 national hunting and export quotas” and felt compelled to correct them.

WRSA’s own press releases directly attacking George

  1. In a statement titled “MINISTER GEORGE HIDES BEHIND COURT CASE TO EXCUSE HIS OWN FAILURE”, WRSA accuses George of:
  • issuing a “misleading” statement;
  • using the court case as a “pretext” for inaction;
  • presiding over “a failure that harms conservation and rural livelihoods”; and
  • celebrating in Wildlife Ranchers Say Enough is Enough that a “crucial legal victory” over George was achieved and criticises his failure to issue hunting quotas for “crippling conservation, trade and rural economies”.
  1. DM: “This is not polite policy disagreement – it is sustained, personalised attack on the minister’s integrity and competence.”

Media coverage of WRSA’s attacks

  1. Thom refers to the Mail & Guardian, which wrote that wildlife ranchers are reported as accusing George of “hiding behind a process of his own making” and of “paralysing” the sector by failing to set quotas.
  2. She He adds that international bodies aligned with hunting (e.g. the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation – CIC) and industry-friendly commentators often repeat and amplify WRSA’s narrative that a “quota stalemate” is the minister’s fault and a threat to conservation and rural livelihoods.

WRSA leadership media appearances

  1. In a BizNews interview, York criticises the department’s lion-policy reforms and questions George’s priorities, suggesting he is “ill-advised”, more interested in climate change and overseeing funds than facing challenges “in his own backyard” – implying that his decisions pose a risk to the wildlife economy.
  2. Thom: “Again, this is public messaging that could be viewed as aimed squarely at undermining George’s political and public legitimacy. Put together, as a specialist journalist Pinnock views it as a pattern of litigation, press releases, and media campaigning directed at George personally. Describing this as a ‘campaign’ is a fair characterisation, not a conspiracy theory.”

No right of reply

  1. DM says the article is not a single-source exposé of hidden wrongdoing – it is an analysis of political and policy dynamics based on already public material, much of it which was generated by the complainants themselves (referring to court papers, WRSA press releases, public speeches, official quotas, litigation, etc.).
  2. It adds that the Press Council has repeatedly accepted that where criticism is based primarily on public statements and official documents, and where the criticised parties’ position is evident from those materials, fresh comment is not always necessary, particularly in clearly flagged analysis or opinion pieces.
  3. The appropriate remedy, if the Ombud thinks more balance is needed, is a right of reply or a comment piece, not a finding of defamation, DM.

‘State capture’, ‘mechanism of capture’, ‘retaliation’

  1. Thom says the term “capture” in the article is clearly used in the sense of regulatory or policy capture, a well-established concept in political analysis, not of criminal bribery or the Zuma-style hijacking of the entire state.
  2. She submits the article does not allege bribery or corruption by WRSA, that it secretly appoint ministers, or that it controls the DA – instead, it traces overt, documented behaviour such as:
  • litigation and lobbying against reforms that threaten commercial interests;
  • Steenhuisen’s public courting of the sector (e.g. “Hunting is conservation”);
  • Aucamp’s open alignment with hunting/breeding and his family’s hunting businesses; and
  • the proposal to replace a minister with a politician who is embedded in concerned circles.
  1. DM argues that describing the timing as “retaliation” is a value judgment – when a minister drives unpopular reforms that hurt a sector’s profits, and that sector responds with litigation, PR attacks and lobbying that coincide with his removal, it is entirely within the bounds of protected comment to call that “politically retaliatory”.

Aucamp ‘closely aligned with this coalition’

  1. Thom says this statement was a fair summary of Aucamp’s own public conduct and affiliations inter alia because:
  • The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum South Africa’s (WAPFSA’s) letter notes that Aucamp addressed the AGM of SUCo-SA at Mabalingwe, not “in (his) personal “capacity”;
  • WAPFSA quotes Aucamp’s own family business sites promoting trophy hunting: “Embark on a truly unforgettable hunting experience… Your Hunt of a Lifetime”, and describes him as “proudly, explicitly and publicly aligned with South Africa’s hunting and wildlife breeding” industry; and
  • The Blood Lions / Voice4Lions coalition notes that Steenhuisen’s proposed replacement “has openly shown close alliance with the same organisations fighting to keep the commercial captive predator industry alive, such as Wildlife Ranching South Africa and the Sustainable Use Coalition of South Africa”.

WRSA members ‘committing crimes’

  1. DM: The article criticises a sectoral model that many organisations view as unethical and harmful, and which government policy now seeks to phase out – “that is classic normative criticism, not an allegation of unlawful conduct”.

Evidence of ‘attacks’ on George by breeders and hunters 

  1. Thom says the complaint suggests that WRSA and related bodies merely engaged in normal policy dialogue and that portraying them as “taking down” a minister is unfair. To the contrary, she argues, there has been a trail of online attacks and pressure, much of it amplified on Facebook. For example:
  • WRSA’s quota press releases, headlined: “MINISTER GEORGE HIDES BEHIND COURT CASE TO EXCUSE HIS OWN FAILURE”; and
  • “Wildlife Ranchers Say Enough Is Enough”, celebrating a legal win against George and blaming him for “crippling” economies.
  1. DM also cites pieces by Mail & Guardian, CIC Wildlife and BizNews to prove its point.
  2. “Taken together with litigation and lobbying, this is plainly more than ordinary consultation – it is a sustained campaign to delegitimise the minister and reverse his reforms, conducted via courts, conventional media and social media. Pinnock’s article merely reflected this… [It] is not presented as a proven secret plot, but as a political reading of public events.”

In summary

  1. Thom concludes that the article:
  • relies on substantially true, publicly verifiable facts;
  • draws reasonable inferences from those facts;
  • is clearly marked as Analysis;
  • addresses a matter of undeniable public interest: the integrity of environmental policy and ministerial appointments;
  • does not impute criminality to WRSA or its officials; and
  • does criticise the role of the wildlife-breeding and hunting lobby – including WRSA – in resisting reforms, litigating against the state and lobbying for a more industry-friendly minister. “That criticism is robust but fair and squarely protected by Section 6 and 7 of the Press Code.”

WRSA responds to the reply

  1. The gist of WRSA’s reply is that DM has diverted attention to peripheral matters, while failing to provide any actual reply to the central complaint.
  2. The complainants say the actual sting of the article and the basis of their complaint is whether:
  • they had any direct or indirect involvement in George’s possible removal;
  • they were part of a concerted, clandestine effort to achieve “state capture” of the department;
  • they maintain an improper or undue relationship with Aucamp;
  • they are an alleged “wealthy lobby group” which is affecting undue influence over Aucamp and the department, to such an extent as to undermine democracy; and
  • sufficient facts exist upon which such statements could be published with specific reference to them.
  1. “These claims, by their nature, demanded a high degree of evidentiary support and responsible reporting – yet the Respondent has not provided a single piece of direct evidence or a coherent explanation in their response,” they conclude.
  2. For the rest of its response, WRSA reiterates its justification for its complaint.

Analysis

  1. The first issue is the nature of the text. Clearly, it is not a news story, it is comment – analysis, as it rightly declares. There can be no debate about it. That is important, as it determines which sections of the Press Code are relevant to this adjudication.
  2. Let me state, upfront, that Section 1.8, which requires journalists to give a subject of critical reporting a right of reply, is nót applicable in this case. Columnists are nót required to ask for comment – and they never will be (not in a situation where the press is free, that is). This section is about comment that should be obtained from subjects of critical reportage in news stories.
  3. In the case at hand, Section 7.2 is central. It reads, “Comment or criticism is protected even if it is extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it is without malice, is on a matter of public interest, has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true, and is presented in a manner that it appears clearly to be comment.”
  4. My task, therefore, is not to determine whether the comments are extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced – the Code allows that to be the case.
  5. What is on my table, is the:
  • matter of malice; and
  • question whether it “has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true”.
  1. As for “malice”: This is a highly subjective matter which requires extraordinary evidence. I do not have any evidence of an attack on individuals or organisations – it is the issue itself which is the target of the analysis.
  2. As for “true”: In this case, there is no way that this office can decide whether the insinuations or innuendos are true or not. Our office does not have such investigative powers; ours is not a court of law.
  3. All that remains, then, is the question if the comments are “reasonably true” – that, and that alone, will determine if the piece was in breach of the Press Code and therefore, if it was harmful to the complainant’s dignity and reputation, as addressed in Section 3.3 of the Code.
  4. Firstly, I do not agree with WRSA’s contention that DM, in its response to the complaint, has diverted attention to peripheral matters. The examples it presented to back up the article (as documented above) indeed go to the heart of this finding – the question if it was reasonably true that the WRSA was in some way involved in the possible sacking of George.
  5. I do think so, yes – given the complainants’ clear disdain for George (see for example Points 23 and 24 in this regard) and given the fact that Aucamp clearly suited them better as Minister of the relevant department. With the evidence at my disposal, I have little doubt that WRSA indeed has played a part in the quest to remove George from his post.
  6. Let me put it even stronger: I would even have found it strange if WRSA did not campaign to get rid of George.
  7. How direct or indirect that influence was, is not for this office to say.
  8. This does not necessarily mean to say that they have colluded with other parties to reach that aim. It was anyway more than possible that the complainants would have expected like-minded organisations to also want to get rid of George.
  9. Regarding Aucamp: I accept that the complainants have only met him a few times and that they do not have a longstanding relationship with him – but that does not mean that they cannot be in the same corner as him.
  10. That said, it is important to note that the article does not accuse WRSA of:
  • orchestrating state capture. Those words do not feature in the article – it is about the capture of a department; and
  • some criminal or illegal action.

Post script

  1. I notice that DM is not alone in its assessment of the case. For example, the following articles held the same view (even though the first one does not mention WRSA’s name or that of any of the complainants):

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

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

Johan Retief

Acting Press Ombud

14 April 2026

 

 

 

Related Posts