Menu
Ruling (Appeals Panel)

Red Rocket South Africa and Ursa Energy vs News24

, ,

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. This is an application by Red Rocket South Africa and Ursa Energy (collectively referred to as the applicants) for leave to appeal a Ruling by the Acting Press Ombud dated 8 June 2026 on the applicants’ complaint lodged against News24 (respondent), dismissing the complaint.
  2. The complaint relates to an article by the respondent published on 18 April 2026 with a headline “SA’s largest, R4.7bn solar project plagued by alleged fraud, labour violations BEE fronting”. There were also some podcasts and a video clip as well as a News24 Daily Quis over the same period, all of which had unflattering headlines. As the headlines indicate, the publications were critical of the business of the applicants.
  3. The complaint as accurately summed up by the Acting Press Ombud: allegations were repeatedly converted into implied facts; prejudicial language, unbalanced and out of context reporting creating an impression of guilt; with all that causing harm. It was alleged that the respondent therefore breached several clauses of the Press Code. A reprimand, correction, and an apology were sought. The respondent denied breaching any clauses; said it had relied on extensive sourced documentary evidence, including from internal sources with direct knowledge. The applicants did not identify a single error and did not dispute the authenticity or existence of the documentary evidence.
  4. After a thorough and hair-splitting analysis of the matter, the complaint was dismissed in its entirety; hence this application. For the application to succeed, the applicant must show reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel. This is what I must now assess, which brings me to the grounds of appeal as set out in the application.
  5. The first ground is that the Acting Ombud, having indicated that the publications had to be assessed in context and not in isolation, did the opposite; reference was made to certain parts of the Ruling, and then alleged that there was a “material misdirection”. I do not agree; I believe the Acting Ombud remained consistent. I find the criticism of a material misdirection incomprehensible.
  6. The remaining grounds essentially criticize the manner in which the Acting Ombud approached and assessed the evidence, with reference to certain parts of the Ruling. The approach adopted by the Acting Ombud, while possibly not approved by the applicants, cannot be said to be necessarily wrong. I have already mentioned that in his analysis of the case, he went into some fine details and thoroughness. The application does not take the matter any further. I agree with the respondent’s counter-argument that the Ruling was sound and well substantiated.
  7. In the circumstances, there are no reasonable prospects of success. The application for leave to appeal is therefore dismissed.

Dated this 2nd day of August 2026

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel

Related Posts