News24 vs YNF Engineering

BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL

In the matter between:

News24                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Applicant

and

YNF Engineering CC and Jade Orren                                                                                                                                                             Respondents

                                                                           Matter No: 000530/02/2026

DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

1. Before me is an application by News24 (applicant) for leave to appeal the Ruling of the Acting Press Ombud dated 28 April 2026. The ruling was on a complaint by YNF Engineering CC and Jade Orren (both referred to hereafter as the respondent). The complaint followed an article published by the applicant on 23 February 2026 with the headline “Trains to nowhere: How a firm scored millions as Prasa allegedly blew billions on old trains.” The complaint was also based on a video on which the applicant’s journalist and one Mr Jeff Wicks discussed the content of the publication. The respondent complained that the article and the video made certain allegations against it, including allegations of price gouging, bribery, corruption and fraud and that Mr Orren had improper relationships with employees of Prasa. The article was commenting on the business between Prasa and the respondent. It was alleged that the publication was not based on a final report that had been commissioned on that business. The complaint said that the publication breached certain clauses of the Press Code, and demanded an apology and a retraction as well as certain undertakings.
2. In its defence, the applicant stated that the respondent declined no less than five invitations to provide a response to the allegations about its business; that the publication was based on a forensic report by a firm of attorneys setting out the irregularities; that the publication and similar ones were all in the public interest; that Prasa and the Department of Transport confirmed to the applicant that they were in possession of the lawyers’ final report, and that the publication was truthful. The respondent therefore denied breaching any clause of the Code.
3. There was a second article which does not appear to be of much consequence.
4. In his Ruling, the Acting Ombud dismissed the complaint, but found there was a breach of clause 1.1 because there was an incorrect reference to “interim” report; also that there was a breach of clause 1.3 by stating as a fact that the respondent “was paid R970m, about 40% of the amount Prasa spent in the first three years of the general overhaul tender.”

A sanction was then imposed. The application is for leave to appeal these findings.

5. For the application to succeed, the applicant must show reasonable prospects of success on appeal. This is what I must now assess.
6. Simply put, the applicant argues that the Acting Press Ombud wrongly used the tests of an “observant reader” as opposed to the well-established concept of a “reasonable reader.” The context of the argument is given; so too its basis, all of which I need not go into at this stage. The argument about “reasonable reader” is also raised against the second finding; here too context is provided.
7. I am of the view that the applicant has shown reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Leave to appeal is therefore granted.

Dated this ^3rd day of August 2026

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel