Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Red Rocket South Africa (RRSA) and Ursa Energy v News24

, ,

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint number: 000641

Author: Azarrah Karrim

Headlines: Article – SA’s largest, R4.7bn solar project plagued by alleged fraud, labour violations, BEE fronting

                       : Podcast episode – Behind the scenes of the R4.7bn solar park and the litany of alleged offences (presented by Kyle Cowan                            and Azarrah Karrim)

                                  : Podcast episode – Dark clouds gather over SA’s largest solar project (presented by Graeme Raubenheimer and Karrim)

: TikTok video clip, posted on 17 April 2026 (https://www.tiktok.com/@news24/video/7629666568061979911)

:  Instagram video clip, posted on 17 April 2026 (https://www.instagram.com/reel/DXOozd0gARI)

: News24 Daily Quiz published on the News24 website and on the News24 Instagram account, on or about 17–18 April                                           2026

Publication Date of Article: 18 April 2026

Date lodged: 21 May 2026

Link to story: https://www.news24.com/giftedarticle/5SqcjmHEyqbxGHsfrKam

Particulars

  1. This finding is based on correspondence by Nichola Walker-Woodard, Head of Legal Affairs Red Rocket South Africa (Pty) Ltd (RRSA), and by Azarrah Karrim, Investigative journalist, News24, as well as by George Claasssen, News24’s Public Editor.

Disclaimer

Both parties mention correspondence between them prior to the complaint having been lodged with this office. I have noted it, but only as background information.

The article

  1. The introductory sentence to the article aptly summarises the content of the story. It reads, “Chinese state-owned contractors building one of Africa’s largest grid-connected solar projects in Virginia, the Free state, have been accused of a cascade of regulatory and potentially criminal violations, including alleged BEE fronting and the employment of Chinese nationals without valid work visas.”
  2. Karrim continues, “The companies are also accused of tax violations, systematic labour law breaches and fraudulent construction work permits, which means the project should have been shut down, at least temporarily.”
  3. The project, funded by Rand Merchant Bank, was awarded to URSA Energy in 2022.
  4. RRSA’s CEO, Matteo Brambilla, reportedly previously boasted that his company was “the driving force behind South Africa’s largest grid-connected solar project”, having secured 44% of all megawatts awarded.
  5. Luca Silva, RRSA’s COO, is quoted as:

i. saying that Bongiwe Koyana’s BEE participation was verified by external legal counsel and that Tzung En Liao was also defined as black under the BEE Act;

ii. denying that a permit authorising high-risk construction work issued to Sinohydro was fraudulent, adding that an amendment application had been submitted, “though he acknowledged the department claimed not to have received it”;

iii. stating that, Sinohydro “has the responsibility to ensure that the consortium meets its employment regulatory obligations” (Karrim adds that this was “directly contradicting the department’s assertion”);

iv. adding that, once HDEC was registered locally, all employees were transferred to them and that “the consortium had addressed the matter after the department engaged them on it”; and

v. saying that HDEC was registered and fulfilled all its obligations.

The complaint

  1. In general, the complaint is that:

a. allegations were repeatedly converted into implied facts;

b. prejudicial and escalatory language was used, notwithstanding acknowledged ongoing investigations;

c. the reportage was unbalanced and out of context;

d. the cumulative effect of the reportage creates an impression of established guilt; and

e. the above has caused the complainants unnecessary harm to their dignity and reputation.

      9. In particular, the reportage is said to be in breach of the following clauses of the Press Code:

a. 1 .1– “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly.” The combined effect of the reportage creates the clear impression that the complainants are responsible for, or complicit in, fraud, regulatory and criminal wrongdoing.

b. The intermittent use of the word “alleged” does not cure the cumulative impression conveyed by the publications, particularly where:

i. the podcasts use the language of established wrongdoing (for example, “serious regulatory and possibly criminal violations committed by a joint venture”);

ii. the News24 Daily Quiz characterises the project as the “fraud-plagued Virginia Solar Park project”, asserting fraud as established fact in a consumer engagement format; and

c. This constitutes unfair reporting and amounts to prejudgment.

10.1.2 – “The media shall present news in context and in a balanced manner, without distortion, exaggeration or material omissions.”

a. The reporting gives extensive attention to allegations and suspicions while failing to adequately explain the:

i. legal thresholds for regulatory enforcement;

ii. provisional nature of the investigative processes referenced; and

iii.absence of adverse findings against the complainants or the contractor.

b. Responses from the complainants, lenders, and the contractor are presented briefly and are immediately undermined through editorial commentary. For example, at timestamp 8:24–8:31 of Behind the scenes, the lender’s statement is followed immediately by the editorial remark “Well, let’s hope they actually do that” – which strips the response of weight.

c. The complaint is not that News24 questioned regulatory enforcement, it is that it has advanced specific propositions (“the site should have been shut down”, and “construction should have been paused”) as if those regulatory consequences had already been reached, when no such determination has been made by a competent authority.

d. This renders the overall effect as materially unbalanced and misleading.

11. 1.3 – “The media shall present only what may reasonably be true as fact; opinions, allegations or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such.”

a. Although the word “alleged” is used intermittently, the language, repetition, and framing convert allegations into implied facts.

b. Terms such as “serious regulatory and possibly criminal violations”, “fraudulent” and repeated assertions that the site “should have been shut down” convey conclusions that are not supported by any regulatory determination.

c. The use of qualifiers does not cure a breach of the Press Code where the impression conveyed is one of factual guilt. The cumulative effect of language, framing, repetition, headline choice, and the gamification of the allegations in the Daily Quiz crosses that line.

12. 1.7– “The media shall verify the accuracy of doubtful information, if practicable; if not, this shall be stated.”

a. The podcasts and audio-visual content rely heavily on undisclosed sources, leaked documents and post-publication social media commentary (for example, “when we posted the teaser video on social media, there were quite a few people who came forward and said, ‘this is true’”, at timestamp 8:43– 9:07 of The Lead).

b. The TikTok and Instagram videos assert that News24 is in possession of the documents on which the reporting is based. Those documents have not been identified, produced, or made available for inspection.

c. The complainants request sight of the documentary evidence to engage substantively, “consistent with the Press Code’s right of reply framework”.

13.1.8 – “The media shall seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication.”

a. The complaint says the complainants’ responses are framed as defensive and are not afforded equal prominence or weight (for example, at timestamp 6:31–6:38 of Behind the scenes, and Red Rocket’s response on B-BEEE compliance is followed immediately by compliance critique).

b. Moreover, their responses are repeatedly followed by editorial commentary that undermines them (for example, at timestamp 13:24–13:31 of Behind the scenes, “Red Rocket said HDEC had settled all their debts with SARS, but we’ll follow up on that”).

c. New allegations and evidence references that were not put to the complainants prior to publication appeared in the published content, notwithstanding their express willingness to engage further.

d. The result is formal compliance with Clause 1.8 of the Press Code “but substantive unfairness in its presentation”.

14.1.9 – “The media shall state where a report is based on limited information and supplement it once new information becomes available.”

a. Although the journalists concede on-air that investigations remain incomplete (for example, “The BEE Commission is still investigating. There has been no finding …”, at timestamp 4:49–5:24 of The Lead), the reporting nevertheless advances definitive conclusions and judgments. The provisional nature of the information is acknowledged but is then overridden by commentary that proceeds as though conclusions were justified.

15.3.3 – “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation.”

a. The cumulative effect of the publications lowers the reputation of the complainants, associates them with fraud, corruption, unlawfulness, and regulatory indifference, and does so in circumstances where facts are contested and investigations are unresolved.

16.10.1 – “Headlines, captions and audiovisual content shall not mislead the public and shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report.”

a. The titles and descriptors, including references to a “litany of alleged offences” and “dark clouds gather”, are emotive and conclusion driven. These headlines and audiovisual framings amplify suspicion and reputational harm across platforms.

17. The News24 Daily Quiz is a separate and discrete breach of this clause. Considering News24’s contention in its response that it was “unable to respond substantively without clarity on the precise nature of the complaint”, the complainants particularise the objection as follows:

a. The quiz was published on or about 17–18 April 2026 on the News24 website (as a Daily Quiz) and on the News24 Instagram account (as an Instagram story).

b. Question 1 of the quiz: “What is the name of the asset manager overseeing the fraud-plagued Virginia Solar Park project?”, with answer options “Red Rocket” and “Green Whistle”. This phrase asserts fraud as established fact. No regulator, court or tribunal has made a finding of fraud in respect of the project.

c. The quiz expressly names Red Rocket as an answer.

d. The cumulative effect of the headlines, audiovisual content and Daily Quiz framings amplifies suspicion and reputational harm across platforms which are in breach of Clause 10.1 of the Press Code.

Relief sought

  1. The complainants ask this office to:

a. reprimand News24 and to order it to publish a prominent correction and clarification stating that:

i. the investigations referred to in the articles are still ongoing;

ii. no competent authority has made any finding of wrongdoing; and

iii. no adverse conclusions have been reached against the complainants or the contractor.

b. publish an apology for presenting unproven allegations in an unfair and prejudicial manner.

c. amend the online article and podcast descriptions by adding a clear editorial note, explaining that the allegations remain unproven and that no adverse regulatory findings have been made.

d. find that the News24 Daily Quiz breached the Press Code by presenting fraud as an established fact regarding the Virginia Solar Park project and by naming Red Rocket as an answer to a question based on that assertion.

e. order News24 to correct the Daily Quiz, including:

i. removing or amending any version that treats fraud as established fact or identifies Red Rocket on that basis;

ii. publishing a prominent correction and apology relating specifically to the quiz; and

iii.refraining from republishing the quiz or using similar gamified presentations of unproven allegations until the relevant investigations are concluded.

f. order News24 to publish the complainants’ reply to the disputed publications in a form approved by this office.

Reply to the complaint

In general

  1. News24 denies that it is in breach of any clause of the Press Code.
  2. It says that its investigation is based on extensive documentary evidence obtained from multiple sources and verified through official channels, as well as information from internal sources with direct knowledge of the project.
  3. This includes:

a. construction work permit documents showing alterations between versions;

b. photographs of altered permit annexures displayed on-site;

c. official correspondence from regulatory bodies including the SA Council for the Project and Construction Management Professions (SACPCMP) and the Department of Labour (DoL);

d. non-compliance notices issued by government departments;

e. worker lists and employment records;

f. communications and documentation from internal sources with direct involvement in or knowledge of the project; and

g. official confirmations from government agencies (SACPCMP, DoL, Home Affairs, SARS) corroborating key allegations.

   22 .Claassen notes that the complainants do not identify a single factual error in its reporting. They do not dispute the existence or authenticity of the documentary evidence that News24 relied upon. Their complaint concerns tone, editorial judgment and the presentation of undisputed facts about ongoing government investigations into serious regulatory violations at South Africa’s largest renewable energy project.

The nature of the formats

  1. News24 points out that it is important to distinguish between the different formats of the texts that are in dispute – the distinctions are material to assess whether the Press Code has been breached:

a. The investigative article constitutes its primary factual reporting, based on extensive documentary evidence and internal sources.

b. the “Reporting Notes” podcast (“Behind the scenes…”) is an analysis and commentary segment, not investigative reporting. It is specifically marketed as taking readers “behind the scenes” of investigations and analysing the bigger picture. As such, it constitutes protected comment under Clause 7.2 of the Press Code – opinion that is honestly held, based on true facts and clearly distinguishable from news reporting. This section of the Press Code 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.

c. “The Lead” podcast is a news discussion program that reviews and contextualises current investigations and news stories.

d. The Daily Quiz is an initiative of News24‘s marketing and social media team, separate from the newsroom. It was published as an Instagram story (which by platform design expires after 24 hours), that has since disappeared and cannot be republished or repurposed.

Public interest; government investigations

  1. News24 says the Virginia Solar Park is South Africa’s largest grid-connected solar energy project, valued at R4.7 billion – hence its public interest.
  2. The project is the subject of multiple ongoing government investigations (which are not disputed by the complainants):

a. The DoL is investigating employment of foreign nationals without valid work permits, manipulation of construction work permits and failures to register and remit statutory payments (UIF, PAYE and COIDA – the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act);

b. SARS investigates tax compliance matters;

c. SACPCMP investigates fraudulent professional qualifications; and

d. Home Affairs is investigating VISA violations.

   26.  “The Complainants acknowledge this right ‘in principle’ … but seek to dictate how such matters may be reported. This is incompatible           with press freedom and the watchdog role of journalism in a democratic society,” Claassen and Karrim submit.

Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 – Truth, Accuracy, Fairness, Balance, Context

  1. News24 says the complainants’ argument that its reporting creates an “impression” of guilt despite acknowledging that it repeatedly stated investigations are ongoing, is fatal to their complaint.
  2. Claassen and Karrim argue that the reporting:

a. consistently uses qualifiers such as “alleged,” “allegedly,” “possibly,” and “it appears”;

b. explicitly states that investigations by the B-BBEE Commission, SARS, DoL and SACPCMP are ongoing;

c. makes clear that no final determinations or adverse findings have been issued;

d. includes responses from Red Rocket (CEO Matteo Brambilla and COO Luca Silva), the contractor, lenders (RMB), and government departments;

e. consistently identifies the contractor as the primary subject of most allegations; and

f. is based on extensive documentary evidence and information from internal sources with direct knowledge of the project.

  29. They add that the complainants do not dispute the factual accuracy of the reporting, neither do they challenge the authenticity or           reliability of its documentary evidence or sources – “they object to our editorial analysis and to the fact that we reported on investigations at all”.

30. The observations that “it’s unclear why the site wasn’t shut down” and that construction “should have been paused” are:

a. based on extensive documentary evidence in our possession, including copies of construction work permit annexures showing alterations, photographs of altered permits displayed on-site and DoL non-compliance notices;

b. informed by internal sourcing with direct knowledge of the project and regulatory requirements;

a legitimate journalistic analysis, questioning why regulatory authorities did not take enforcement action;

c. directed at regulatory performance, not at establishing the complainants’ guilt; and

d. entirely appropriate when investigating regulatory violations at a major infrastructure project.

Distinguishing facts from allegations

  1. News24 says its use of words such as “alleged,” “allegedly,” and “possibly” is not merely window-dressing – “… it is proof of responsible journalism. These qualifiers ensure that reasonable readers understand how allegations are separated from established conclusions”.
  2. What is more, the reporting is based on what may “reasonably be true”, given the extensive documentary evidence and internal source information we obtained. “The allegations are not speculative – they are grounded in documentary proof and corroborated by official government investigations now underway.”
  3. Claassen and Karrim add that the complainants have misquoted what was said (in Behind the scenes podcast, timestamp 3:25-3:42). The exact quote is: “We are looking at serious regulatory and possibly criminal violations that have allegedly been committed by the joint venture appointed to construct this project.”
  4. They submit that this statement:

a. uses the qualifier “allegedly” explicitly;

b. uses the qualifier “possibly” regarding criminal violations;

c. identifies the joint venture contractor – not Red Rocket – as the subject;

d. is entirely accurate – multiple government investigations are indeed examining potential violations; and

e. is based on documentary evidence and internal source information in our possession.

  35. News24 concludes that the allegations are represented fairly, “and the subject of critical reportage is clearly identified as the contractor, not the asset manager, Red Rocket, or Ursa Energy”.

36. Also: The complainants cite various phrases including “window dressing,” “possibly criminal,” and “should have been shut down”. Each of these:

a. is either clearly marked as an allegation, an inference, or an editorial analysis;

b. is based on documented evidence, internal source information, or expert opinion; and

c. represents legitimate journalistic commentary on matters of public interest.

Verification

  1. Claassen and Karrim say they obtained and reviewed extensive documentary evidence including:

a. two versions of a construction work permit annexure, showing material alterations between versions;

b. photographs of the altered permit annexure as displayed on the project site;

c. official correspondence from the SACPCMP regarding fraudulent certificates and ongoing investigations;

d. Department of Labour communications and non-compliance notices;

e. worker lists and employment records;

f. visa status documentation;

g. corporate registration and directorship documentation;

h. internal sourcing, and

i. official confirmations.

 38. In addition, News24 obtained official responses and confirmations from:

a. The SACPCMP: Written confirmation that fraudulent certificates had been discovered and that investigations into multiple persons were ongoing. This constitutes an official finding by a statutory professional body;

b. the DoL: Confirmation of communications with the project regarding permit submissions, and confirmation of non-compliance notices regarding statutory obligations;

c. Home Affairs: Assistance in verifying visa status information for workers, confirming that certain individuals did not hold valid work authorisations;

d. SARS: Confirmation that an investigation was opened following our inquiry; and

e. RMB: Statement from the project’s senior lender regarding monitoring and rule of law commitments.

 39. Moreover, Red Rocket’s own responses to its inquiries confirmed several key allegations, including that:

a. HDEC (a joint venture partner/contractor) employed a construction manager who possessed a fraudulent registration certificate; and

b. the DoL had not received permit amendments that RRSA claimed had been submitted.

  40. Regarding the complainants’ assertion that News24 did not share documentary evidence with them, it submits that that conflates source protection with verification obligations – the Press Code does not require disclosure of confidential sources or documents to subjects of investigation.

  41. News24 says it has provided enough information in its 51 questions to them.

Right of Reply

  1. News24 says it provided extensive coverage of RRSA’s responses, even though most allegations concerned the contractor – such as:

a. CEO Matteo Brambilla’s comments on project progress and RRSA’s track record;

b. COO Silva’s detailed responses on allegations relating to the contractor, including BEE compliance verification, permit submissions, Sinohydro’s regulatory responsibilities, and statutory payments;

c. RMB’s statement on monitoring and commitment to the rule of law; and

d. contractor responses.

   43. Claassen concludes, “The Press Code requires that we seek and include responses. It does not require that we accept those responses without scrutiny or follow-up questions, particularly when we possess documentary evidence or internal source information that appears inconsistent with those responses.”

Responses followed with additional reporting

  1. Regarding the comment, “Well, let’s hope they actually do that” – News24 says this does not “strip the response of weight”, as alleged by the complainants. Rather, it expresses a genuine hope that the allegations will be monitored.
  2. The statement that News24 would “follow up on that” is “precisely what responsible journalism requires – verifying claims made in responses, particularly when we have documentary evidence of previous non-compliance”.
  3. Claassen and Karrim conclude that the complainants do not specify what alleged “new information” was published without their comment, “because no such information exists”.

Reporting on Limited Information

  1. News24 denies that its investigations were incomplete but that it has nevertheless proceeded with “definitive conclusions”, as asserted by the complainants – it says the reporting explicitly and repeatedly:

a. states that investigations by the B-BBEE Commission, SARS, the DoL, and SACPCMP are ongoing;

b. makes clear that no final determinations have been reached by these authorities; and

c. presents matters as allegations and not as established facts.

  48. Moreover, News24’s information was not “limited”. “While government investigations remain incomplete, News24 has detailed the extensive evidence our own investigation was based on.”

49. Claassen and Karrim conclude, “The Complainants appear to argue that ongoing investigations cannot be reported until concluded. This interpretation would eviscerate investigative journalism and deny the public access to information about matters of critical importance while they remain relevant and actionable. Numerous findings by the Press Ombud and its appeal panel have confirmed this principle”.

Dignity and Reputation

  1. News24 says the Press Code recognises that reporting on matters of legitimate public interest may cause reputational impact. “The test is whether such impact is necessary in pursuit of public interest and based on facts that are true or substantially true, not whether it occurs at all.”
  2. Claassen and Karrim argue that the complainants are sophisticated commercial entities operating in a heavily regulated sector involving substantial funds and which seeks to benefit the public. “They cannot reasonably expect to be insulated from scrutiny when serious regulatory questions arise, particularly when supported by documentary evidence and official investigations.”
  3. Moreover, the complainants fail to explain how their reputation is harmed, while most allegations concern the PowerChina joint venture – which is a separate commercial entity. “Our reporting maintained this distinction throughout.”

Headlines, captions, audiovisual content

  1. News24 says the headlines accurately reflect the content:

a. The use of the word “litany” (in a podcast) means a long list or series – which accurately describes multiple concurrent investigations across different regulatory domains;

b. Similarly, “dark clouds” is a common metaphorical expression for emerging difficulties – appropriate for ongoing investigations into serious matters; and

c. Both podcast headlines include qualifiers: “alleged offences” and “clouds” (suggesting uncertainty, not established facts).

The Daily Quiz

  1. News24 says the Daily Quiz is a social media engagement feature run by its marketing and social media team, not its newsroom. It was intended to increase reader engagement with current news through gamified content and was published as an Instagram story.
  2. The relevant quiz question read, “What is the name of the asset manager overseeing the fraud-plagued Virginia Solar Park project?” – with answer options “Red Rocket” or “Green Whistle”.
  3. Claassen and Karrim deny that the word “fraud-plagued” in the question presented fraud as an established fact. They argue:

a. The format is a quiz testing reader knowledge of current news, not a factual assertion. Reasonable readers understand that quiz questions are abbreviated formulations designed for the constraints of social media, not full investigative reports with detailed qualifiers.

b. “Fraud-plagued” referred to documented allegations reported in its investigative coverage, including fraudulent qualifications, allegedly manipulated permits, visa contraventions, and possible B-BBEE fronting, rather than a claim that fraud had been legally proven;

c. The content appeared in a quiz format designed to test readers’ knowledge of current events, where brief wording is expected and is not understood as a full factual report;

d. The text has expired and is no longer accessible, making requests for its removal or amendment impractical; and

e. The complainants’ criticism is inconsistent because they object both to News24’s use of the word “allegedly” in its reporting – and now to its omission in the quiz.

  57. News24 concludes: “Given the quiz’s ephemeral nature, its marketing (rather than newsroom) origin and the context of detailed investigative reporting, we submit that any imprecision does not constitute a material Press Code breach warranting the extraordinary relief sought by the Complainants.”

Reporting notes as protected comment

  1. News24 says the complainants rely heavily on quotations from the Behind the scenes podcast in News24’s Reporting Notes However, those notes are clearly presented as editorial analysis and commentary, rather than primary investigative reporting. Its purpose is to take readers “behind the scenes”, to provide context, to explain investigations, and to discuss their broader implications – as opposed to straight news coverage.
  2. Claassen and Karrim argue that, as commentary, the content falls within the Press Code’s protections for opinion and criticism, provided it is honestly held, based on true facts, and clearly identifiable as comment
  3. They conclude, “The Complainants’ objections to phrases such as “let’s hope they actually do that” (regarding lenders’ monitoring commitments) or questions about why enforcement action was not taken are precisely the kind of editorial analysis and skepticism that protected comment permits. They submit that the Press Code protects robust commentary and analysis on matters of public interest. The complainants seek to subject commentary to the same constraints as factual reporting, which would impermissibly restrict press freedom, they conclude.

Relief sought by complainants

  1. News24 submits that the relief sought by the complainants, as documented under Point 17, is “extraordinary, disproportionate and would constitute impermissible prior restraint on future reporting” – in effect, they seek “ongoing editorial oversight of News24’s coverage of the Virginia Solar Park project and a prohibition on certain forms of content (‘gamified framings’) pending the outcome of investigations that may take months or years”.
  2. Claassen and Karrim argue, “This is not a request to remedy proven Press Code breaches – it is an attempt to control and suppress future reporting on matters of public interest, despite our reporting being based on extensive documentary evidence and verified internal source information. The Press Council is not empowered to, and should not, impose such restrictions.”

Rejoinder

  1. The complainants reply that News24’s defence is built on the preposition that, because they do not dispute the authenticity of the underlying documents, the complaint must fail.
  2. They argue that the Press Code does not confine itself to factual accuracy – it also requires truthful, fair, balanced reporting in context, and that allegations and suppositions be presented as such. “A report may be accurate in each of its individual components and still breach the Code through the cumulative impression its framing creates. The Complaint is directed at that framing, and at the way the publications, emphasis, sequencing, and the headlines convert unproven allegations into an impression of established fraud or guilt,” they submit.
  3. The complainants argue that the article, the two podcasts and the social media posts, including the Daily Quiz, should not be looked at in isolation. “Taken together, they send the public a clear message that the Virginia Solar Park is ‘fraud-plagued’, that fraud has in fact taken place, and that Red Rocket is a bad asset manager responsible for it. That message is built up by the combined effect of the headline, the quiz naming Red Rocket, the tone of the podcasts and the editorial comments. The combined message is one of guilt, not of unproven allegations still under investigation.”
  4. They argue that the context (read: that the allegations are still under investigation) is lost; the message is exaggerated into one of established fraud; and lawful and ordinary explanations are omitted.
  5. In conclusion, “The question before the Ombud is not whether each sentence is literally defensible, but whether the publications (as read and heard as an ordinary reader or listener), distinguished allegation from fact… The Complainants ask the Ombud to assess the publications together, as the public received them, and not as separate items.”

Right of reply, documentary evidence

  1. The complainants say they responded in full to News24’s (51) questions – therefore, it “was not entitled to publish the content as though these answers did not exist, or to present Red Rocket’s cooperative answers as confirmation of guilt”.
  2. They submit that Clause 1.7 of the Press Code places the duty of verification on News24, and not on them. “Proper verification before publishing would have shown the Respondent that the matters it casts as fraud are capable of lawful and ordinary explanations. A failure to verify to that standard, before publishing allegations of fraud as the dominant message, is itself a breach of Clause 1.7,” the argument goes.
  3. To this, the complainants add: “Leaving the public with an impression of established fraud, while omitting the substance of these answers, is a material omission under Clause 1.2 and a failure of fair reporting under Clause 1.1”.
  4. They also say that they could not dispute the authenticity of documents that were never disclosed to them. Besides, the existence of a document, on its own, does not establish fraud or wrongdoing.
  5. They add that News24 relies on material that only surfaced after publication, including anonymous comments on its own social media platforms, referred to in the second podcast. “This cannot assist the Respondent. Verification under Clause 1.7 must be done before publishing, not assembled afterwards. Information that emerges only after the reporting cannot prove that the reporting was properly verified when it was published. Anonymous after-the-event comments are not verification at all.”

Protected comment

  1. The complainants say News24’s argument that the “Behind the scenes” podcast is protected comment fails. Clause 7.2 of the Press Code, they submit, protects comment inter alia if it is based on a fair account of material facts that are true or reasonably true, and if it is clearly presented as comment – which is not applicable in this case.
  2. Although News24 acknowledges that investigations were incomplete and no findings had been made, “the podcast allegedly proceeds as though fraud had already occurred, effectively assuming guilt rather than commenting on verified facts,” their argument goes.
  3. The complainants maintain that News24’s use of the word “allegedly” does not cure the problem. “Despite that qualifier, the repeated references to ‘serious regulatory and possibly criminal violations’, create a strong overall impression of wrongdoing. In their view, the allegation is framed in a way that overwhelms the qualification and leaves listeners with the impression that serious misconduct has effectively been established.”

Conflation of asset manager, contractor

  1. The complainants say they accept that the distinction between manager and contractor is significant and that most of the allegations concerned the latter and not them. However, that is exactly why their complaint is justified – “the headline, the Daily Quiz and the podcast framing repeatedly named and foregrounded [them] in connection with conduct [News24] now concedes was the contractor’s.”
  2. They conclude that News24 “cannot rely on the distinction between the contractor and the asset manager as a shield in its reply while having erased that distinction in the publications complained of. The Daily Quiz is the clearest example. It named Red Rocket, the asset manager, as the answer to a question about the ‘fraud-plagued’ project.”

The Daily Quiz

  1. The complainants say the question:

a. stated as fact that the project is “fraud-plagued”;

b. removed any qualifier such as “alleged”; and

c. named RRSA as an entity to be linked to that fraud.

  1. They reject News24’s argument that the quiz was done by the marketing team and not by the newsroom – they submit that the Press Code applies to whatever News24
  2. They conclude, “… through headlines, the quiz, the tone of the podcasts and the way the items are put together, it leaves the public in no doubt that it is saying there is fraud and that Red Rocket is to blame. The quiz simply makes that underlying message explicit by dropping the qualifier altogether.”

In conclusion

  1. The complainants point out that Clause 1.9 of the Press Code requires that, where a report rests on information that is still incomplete, that provisional character must shape the whole report, and not appear once and then be overridden. However, “… the journalists acknowledge on air that the investigations are not finished and that no findings have been made. They then proceed, through tone, headlines, the quiz, and comment, as though fraud were established. That breaches Clause 1.9.”
  2. They concede that reputational harm could be necessary in the public interest, but argue that the harm caused to them was unfair, unnecessary and avoidable.
  3. They conclude that News24 responded about factual errors that they never complained about. “It leaves unanswered the Complaint that was brought, which is that the underlying facts were presented through framing, emphasis, headline, and editorialised commentary that converted allegation into an impression of fraud and guilt.”

Analysis

In general

  1. The core issue of this complaint is not about accuracy – it is about “framing” (read: balance and fairness). This makes Clause 1.2 and Clause 3.3 of the Press Code relevant in this case.
  2. The central question, therefore, is how a reasonable reader would have interpreted the reportage. In other words, were readers left with the impression that the complainants had been involved in some fraudulent activity?

The article

  1. I take the following considerations into account:

a. The only time that the complainants are mentioned in the article, is recorded above under Point 5 – 7;

b. Nowhere is an allegation of fraud or of illegal actions on their part stated as a fact;

c. For example, immediately after the reference to RRSA’s CEO, these words follow: “But the unincorporated joint venture building the 122-hectare facility – PowerChina Huadong Engineering Corporation (HDEC), its subsidiary Sinohydro SA, and BEE partner Green Whistle – allegedly left a trial of violations…” This finger does not point at RRSA;

d. Moreover, immediately underneath that sentence is an insert which informs that those three companies respectively own 45%, 15% and 40% of the joint venture – in other words, the whole undertaking (100%). Neither URSA Energy nor RRSA is included in this venture; and

e. Even if the complainants could be seen as having been involved in some fraudulent activity (which I do not believe is the case), it still would not have been in breach of the Press Code – the reportage consistently presented the information as allegations (which came from several sources and from documentation involving investigations into the matter) and it has clarified that those investigations were still underway. The media have a responsibility to investigate matters of public importance and to report allegations as serious as the ones on the table.

   87. I therefore conclude that the complaint that readers would have been left with the impression that guilt has been “established” is without merit.

The headlines

  1. The complaint that the headlines to the article and the podcasts are “emotive” and “conclusion driven” and that they amplify suspicion and reputational harm across platforms cannot be upheld. News24’s defence in this regard, as documented under Point 53, is sound and convincing.

The Daily Quiz

  1. The quiz question read, “What is the name of the asset manager overseeing the fraud-plagued Virginia Solar Park project?” – with “Red Rocket” as an answer.
  2. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that a complaint about a quiz question has landed on this office’s desk.
  3. The first issue, then, is if such a question can be in breach of the Press Code, even though it was not formulated in a newsroom.
  4. The answer to this should be a clear and unconditional “yes”, because:

a. an editor should take responsibility for everything that is published; and

b. if a quiz is exempt from the Press Code, those responsible for a quiz have a free hand to ask or to imply anything. That, to my mind, is inconceivable.

  93. The complainants have asked me to consider the reportage in context, and not in isolation. That is a fair request.

94. That is exactly why I believe that the quiz question does not imply that RRSA was involved in fraudulent matters – the article, on which the question was based (and which provided the context), does not do so.

95. I agree that the phrase “fraud-plagued” should have been put in inverted commas or, alternatively, should have added the word “alleged” – but since the article did not imply that RRSA was involved in fraud, I do not believe that it can complain about the use of that phrase. The possible guilt implied in the phrase does not pertain to RRSA. The party / parties who could complain about the use of that phrase, did not do so.

The two podcasts, the TikTok video clip and the Instagram video clip

  1. Neither of the above add anything new to what is reported in the article.

Some miscellaneous issues

  1. Let me try to tie up some loose ends:

a. The remark, “Well, let’s hope they actually do that,” as recorded under Point 10 (b), refers to Rand Merchant Bank and not to the complainants. It is a legitimate journalistic comment that does not strip the response of weight, as suggested by the complainants;

b. The complaint that News24 has advanced specific propositions (“the site should have been shut down”, and “construction should have been paused”) as if those regulatory consequences had already been reached, when no such determination has been made by a competent authority, is also without merit. The “propositions” are made not because any “determination” has been reached, but because of the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of ongoing investigations;

c. The references to undisclosed sources and documentation are also baseless – a publication has no obligation to disclose any information to a subject of investigation;

d. It is unclear as to what the “new allegations” that the complainants mention in Point 13 (c) refer to that were not put to them prior to publication appeared in the published content; and

e. The complaint that News24 did not verify its information is without any basis. I refer to its sound defence as documented in Point 20, 21, 25, 37 and 38 in this regard.

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

8 June 2026

 

 

Related Posts