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

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint:  32398 (B)

Author: Adam Cruise

Headline: Steenhuisen’s lion bone gambit — firing the one minister who finally took on the wildlife trade

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-steenhuisens-lion-bone-gambit-firing-the-one-minister-who-finally-took-on-the-wildlife-trade/

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 Dr Adam Cruise.

The text

3. The gist of this text is summarised in the blurb at the top of the article: “… [DA leader John] Steenhuisen’s move (regarding his request to President Cyril Ramaphosa) to fire [the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Dion] George and replace him with Aucamp suggests that, when forced to choose, the DA leadership is more worried about hunters and wildlife ranchers than about lions in cages and a country’s integrity on the world stage”.
4. Cruise writes: “In reality, it looks a lot like a calculated move to drag the environmental portfolio back into the arms of South Africa’s powerful hunting and wildlife trade lobby.”
5. George is said to be the first environment minister in years to meaningfully move against South Africa’s shameful captive lion industry and the associated lion bone trade. “While George has become an obstacle to the lion-breeding and bone-export machine, Aucamp has been investing in relationships with the very organisations that want that machine to keep humming.”
6. He summarises: “Let’s be blunt. Firing George now, and replacing him with Willie Aucamp, would not be a neutral personnel shift. It would be a victory for the wildlife-trade lobby at the precise moment it is fighting to claw back the lion bone quota. It would send a chilling message to any future minister who dares to challenge entrenched interests: push too hard against the gun and the bone crate, and your own party will come for you.”
7. The only time that WRSA is mentioned, is with reference to Aucamp’s speech at the SuCO’s AGM, where the former is listed “with evident approval” as one of its members.
8. This reference involves WRSA in the all the allegations made in the article.

The complaint

In general

9. WRSA says the article functions as an extension and reinforcement of the false narrative constructed in another article headlined, The sacking of Dion George – how a progressive minister is being taken down by the wildlife breeder (written by Don Pinnock and published on the same day).[1]
10. It notices that the article is presented as an Op-Ed, but remarks: “A publication cannot escape responsibility for accuracy, fairness and balance merely by placing defamatory content under the banner of ‘opinion’.”
11. It says the article uses the (incorrect and unverified) allegations (i.e. the existence of a wildlife-industry conspiracy, the complainants’ alleged role in “state capture”, and the supposed orchestration of George’s removal in the other article) as a factual foundation for its commentary. This is unfair, as it rests upon a flawed factual basis.
12. Besides, DM did not verify this and never gave it a right of reply.
13. WRSA says this was done with the intention and foreseeable effect of harming its personal and professional reputation – which translates into malicious reporting.
14. It argues that the Press Code affords wide latitude to strong, exaggerated or extreme views – but only where the underlying facts are true, fairly stated, and accurately represented. Once the factual foundation is false or distorted, protection is lost. “Here, the article’s foundation is demonstrably incorrect. It omits material information, relies on misrepresentation, and advances a narrative unsupported by fact. Accordingly, the publication cannot avail itself of the protections provided to opinion or advocacy journalism.”
15. Another aspect of the complaint is about the repeated use of the term “canned lion hunting” and “canned lion industry” in a manner that is misleading, defamatory and legally inaccurate.
16. This, the WRSA argues, falsely implies that it is engaged in illegal activities, as those activities are unlawful in South Africa.
17. It also creates a false equivalence between lawful activities conducted under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 (NEMBA) and Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS), including permitted possession of lion bones or lion derivatives, and criminal activities involving prohibited methods of hunting. “This conflation is materially misleading for a reasonable reader … [and it] contradicts established legal definitions and perpetuates misinformation.”
18. The complainants argue that this was done to stigmatise them and to associate them with criminality. This, they say, is defamatory of them.
19. The WRSA concludes that the article “… rests upon false premises, misrepresents the law, ignores material facts, and unfairly imputes unlawful conduct to the complainants and the lawful wildlife ranching industry. As such, it falls outside the protection afforded by paras 6 and 7 of the Press Code and constitutes a further, independent breach.”
20. Sections 1.3, 6 and 7.2 is of the Press Code are deemed to have been breached.
21. 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.

In particular

22. The following statements/insinuations are disputed:

Statements in dispute	Complaint
George’s potential firing “… is not just a personnel change – it is the culmination of a campaign by powerful private wildlife interests to recapture the department and reverse two decades of reform. 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.” Also: “… Aucamp, a long-time ally of the wildlife-ranching and hunting lobby.	·       This perpetuates the false, damaging and defamatory allegations of state capture against the complainants, and links readers back to the article mentioned under Point 9 (published in conjunction on the same day). ·       The opinion is not objective and independent. ·       It uses the other article as a factual basis for the opinion, which is improper and misleading. ·       It misrepresents George as a hard-working and progressive minister.
At the recently held AGM of the Sustainable Use Coalition of Southern Africa (SuCO) Aucamp “… listed SuCO’s member organisations with evident approval. That list reads like a roll call of the consumptive wildlife lobby, (including): Wildlife Ranching South Africa…”	This perpetuates the innuendo that WRSA is participating in state capture.
“South Africa’s lion bone trade has been extensively documented as a driver of cruelty and a laundering channel for illegal big cat parts. The captive lion industry, built on breeding lions for canned or semi-canned hunts, has already done enormous damage to this country’s international reputation.”	·       This falsely and misleadingly portrays breeders and hunters as the supporters of unlawful canned hunting. ·       It ignores relevant facts regarding the state of lawful conduct by participants under the law. ·       The innuendo that the complainants are associated with and that they support illegal ranching and hunting activities is damaging to their reputation.

 

DM’s response

In general

23. DM says the article was “explicitly published as an Op-Ed, clearly signalling to readers that it represents opinion, commentary and argumentation based on publicly available facts, historical context, and legitimate inference. The complaint misreads the Op-Ed as an extension of ‘news’ and accordingly imports standards that do not apply to commentary.”
24. It adds that the Op-Ed “does not trigger the obligation to seek comment, as it does not make new factual allegations about the complainants”.

The Op-Ed ‘adopts the factual premises of the other article’

25. Cruise denies that his piece adopted the factual premises of the other article. He says his arguments were based on:

• publicly reported political developments, including:
  • the DA’s request to replace George;
  • Aucamp’s nomination; and
  • George’s positions on captive wildlife utilisation.
• Aucamp’s own public statements, including:
  • his social media posts; and
  • his published remarks aligning himself with the Sustainable Use Coalition.

26. He denies that the Op-Ed purports to assert as fact any claim about a covert conspiracy. “Rather, it analyses the political optics, policy tension, and implications of George’s removal in light of established facts.”
27. He also emphasises that the Op-Ed never states or implies that WRSA orchestrated the removal of the minister. Instead, it focuses on the conflict between a progressive policy direction and the interests of the consumptive wildlife lobby, including those organisations that publicly and repeatedly advocate for commercial use of lions, elephants and rhinoceroses.
28. Cruise adds that the Op-Ed does not accuse the complainants of any unlawful activity. Their names appear only in the context of membership in a well-known industry coalition (SUCo-SA), which Aucamp himself invoked.

‘Not independent’ and ‘timed to exert influence

29. Cruise counters that the timing of the publication of his piece was dictated exclusively by unfolding news events, specifically the emerging reports of George’s imminent replacement, public statements from DA leadership, and revelations reported elsewhere (e.g. News24 reports). “The Op-Ed expresses criticism of political decisions in real time—this is not evidence of malice but the core function of political commentary under section 7 of the Press Code.”

No distinction between fact and opinion

30. DM says the Op-Ed is labelled Opinion. “It does not claim objectivity, nor does it purport to be news.”
31. Cruise says an assertion such as “a long-time ally of the wildlife-ranching lobby” is a value-laden conclusion, not a statement of fact. Such assertions rely on Aucamp’s past public positions, his longstanding personal involvement in game farming (which is undisputed and even confirmed in the complaint), and his own published endorsements of SUCo-SA organisations.
32. He points out that the complainants offer no evidence that any assertion in the Op-Ed is false. “Instead, they dispute the author’s interpretation of facts – interpretation which is fully protected under Section 7 of the Press Code.”

The Op-Ed ‘repeats and escalates the defamatory sting’ of the first article

33. Cruise repeats that the Op-Ed does not make a claim that WRSA orchestrated state capture or was engaged in covert conduct – it merely analyses political optics (how Aucamp’s nomination would be perceived, how his public praise of SUCo-SA fits into a broader policy debate, and how the DA’s shifting narrative aligns with or contradicts George’s policy stance). “Nowhere does it attribute intent, coordination, or malfeasance to WRSA or its officers.”

‘Canned hunting’

34. Cruise says the term “canned hunting” is internationally accepted terminology, it is used in academic literature, by NGOs, scientific bodies, and by Minister Barbara Creecy herself.
35. He adds the Op-Ed does not state that WRSA engages in illegal activity – it merely addresses the existence of a controversial industry, the political implications of associations with organisations defending the captive breeding sector, and the reputational damage documented in multiple independent reports.

‘Malice’

36. Cruise says there is no evidence whatsoever of malice. He adds that his analysis is based on Aucamp’s own public behaviour, well-documented tensions within the DA, ministerial statements and policy documents and long-standing research into wildlife trade issues.
37. “I have no personal, financial, or political animus toward the complainants. My work consistently critiques trade in wildlife parts, trophy hunting, [and] policies that commodify vulnerable species, irrespective of the identity of proponents. It is the subject matter, not the individuals, that motivates the editorial position,” he submits.

WRSA replies to the response

38. The core of WRSA’s reply is that the Op-Ed is not based on true facts, that it collapses the distinction between fact and opinion, and that it was published to maliciously amplify the unverified and damaging claims of the other article. DM’s defence “rests on the incorrect premise that its ‘Op-Ed’ label provides a blanket immunity from scrutiny.”
39. Moreover, the complainants say the article does not present the “state capture” conspiracy as an opinion to be debated, but as an established fact based upon the first article.
40. “The coordinated, same-day publication of two articles amplifying the same damaging and unsubstantiated narrative demonstrates a malicious intent to exert maximum public pressure and cause maximum reputational harm. This was not a good-faith contribution to public debate, but a calculated journalistic manoeuvre designed to vilify the Complainants at a moment of political sensitivity,” they conclude.

Analysis

41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.”
44. 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.
45. 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”.

46. 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. I accept Cruise’s argument on this matter (as I do with all his other arguments, including those on canned hunting).
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Given the complainants’ clear disdain of George and given the fact that Aucamp clearly suited them better as Minister of the relevant department, together 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 – which makes the text reasonably true.
50. Let me put it even stronger: I would even have found it strange if WRSA did not campaign to get rid of George.
51. How direct or indirect that influence was, is not for this office to say.
52. 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.
53. 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

54. 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):

• “Sacking Dion George: Vested interests triumph”, by Dr Ross Harvey. It first appeared in Business Day. (https://gga.org/sacking-dion-george-vested-interests-triumph/); and
• “Axing of Minister Dion George – The Democratic Alliance shows its true colours, by the EMS Foundation (https://emsfoundation.org.za/axing-of-minister-dion-george-the-democratic-alliance-shows-its-true-colours/).

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

[1] See my finding, titled WRSA-32398 (A).