Leon du Preez v The South African(a)
Ruling: Acting Press Ombud
Complaint number: 000618
Author: Megan van den Heever
Headline: Jozi pastor ‘predicted’ Elon Musk’s sanctions, SA ‘missile attacks’
Publication Date: 21 April 2026
Date lodged: 12 May 2026
Link to story: https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/pastor-leon-du-preez-facebook-elon-musk-sanctions-starlink-south-africa/
Link to videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg-MQXbJvRA
: https://youtube.com/live/3O8P0MmsleY?feature=share
Particulars
- This finding is based on a written complaint by pastor David Horton, in his capacity as the director of communications of Encounter Church.
- On 25 May 2026, the Public Advocate rejected the complaint, arguing that it would unduly require the Press Council to determine the meaning behind the words of pastors – whether their words should be taken literally or figuratively.
- Hanlie Malan, from Vogel Malan Incorporated, appealed the decision on behalf of Du Preez.
- While I understand the Public Advocate’s reasoning, I nevertheless accepted the complaint, as there was a possibility that the article had omitted material information and therefore could have reported unfairly and out of context.
- Initially, The South African did not defend itself against the complaint; instead, it responded by offering, and then publishing, an apology.
- The apology was published without giving Du Preez an opportunity to respond, and without asking me for condonation.
- Du Preez subsequently complained about the apology as well. This delayed the matter further, as I had to give The South African an opportunity to respond to the new complaint.
- Given these complications, I have decided to adjudicate the complaints about the article and those about the published apology separately.
- In its subsequent response, dated 3 August 2026, the publication responds to the complaint about the original article, as well as to the complaint about the apology.
- I cannot accept its defence against the original article, as the publication has already published an apology and, besides, it is substantially out of time.
- This means that:
a. I am adjudicating this complaint (about the original article) without an official defence by The South African, and will focus only on the complaint and then, separately, on the published apology; and
b. these adjudications should be read in conjunction with each other.
- In further correspondence, The South African offers to work with Du Preez’s representatives to amend the wording of the original and subsequent articles until all parties are satisfied that it fairly reflects his position – on condition that the text does not constitute an admission that the Press Code had been breached.
- Du Preez rejected this offer, hence the two findings that are to follow.
The article
14. The article says the pastor of the Encounter Church in Johannesburg, Leon du Preez, claimed that he had predicted recent calls by Elon Musk for sanctions against South Africa (the latter has publicly criticised the country’s “racist laws”, which he believes discriminate against white people), as well as a future “missile” strike on the country.
15. He reportedly also warned on Facebook that these calamities would be diverted if the church united in prayer and repentance.
The complaint
16. In general, Horton complains that the article is materially misleading, defamatory, sensationalised, and that it fails to represent accurately the source material it purports to report on.
17. The gist of the complaint is about the statement, both in the headline and in the article, that Du Preez predicted literal missile attacks on South Africa and that war was coming to the country soon.
18. Horton submits, “This framing materially distorts the original message and creates the false public impression that Leon predicted that [there would be] literal warfare or physical missile attacks against South Africa. In the original source material, Leon expressly used figurative, symbolic and conditional language.”
19. To back up his argument, he quotes Du Preez as saying and writing the following (which, he complains, the article either omits or downplays):
a. “And you know, it is spiritual… I saw like an attack coming in the nation. Not speaking war, nothing like this, but I saw like an arrow, like a missile attacking the nation. I’m speaking now symbolic”;
b. “And I saw this thing happening in June, July and it’s going to be a big shock for the nation if the church doesn’t pray”;
c. “I saw like a strike, almost like an arrow or a missile … whether it’s in the spirit, whatever it is;”
d. “I saw a missile (meaning major instability or international financial attack) hit this nation around July…”;
e. “This is a warning. It is not a sentence”;
f. “If the church can pray … divert it”;
g. “You will not see bloodshed”;
h. “Not speaking war, nothing like this”; and
i. “I’m speaking now symbolic.”
20. Horton concludes that the reportage has altered the meaning of what Du Preez has said and that it has caused substantial reputational harm to him and to his family.
21. He submits that the reportage is in breach of the following sections of the Press Code:
a. 1.1: “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”;
b. 1.2: “The media shall present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarisation”;
c. 1.8: “The media shall seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication, except when they might be prevented from reporting, or evidence destroyed, or sources intimidated. Such a subject should be afforded reasonable time to respond; if unable to obtain comment, this shall be stated”; and
d. 3.3: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation, which may be overridden only if it is in the public interest and if:
i. “the facts reported are true or reasonably true; or
ii. “the reportage amounts to protected comment based on facts that are adequately referred to and that are either true or reasonably true; or
iii. “the reportage amounts to a fair and accurate report of court proceedings…; or
iv. “it was reasonable for the information to be communicated because it was prepared in accordance with acceptable principles of journalistic conduct; or
v. “the article was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the complainant was a party.”
Vogel Malan’s appeal for condonation/complaint
22. In Du Preez’s appeal against the Public Advocate’s decision, Hanlie Malan repeats the above (namely: that Du Preez did not predict literal missile attacks, warfare, bombing or a physical military strike against South Africa).
23. She also cites a subheading in the article as follows: “Prominent Johannesburg Pastor Leon du Preez claims to have predicted threats made by Elon Musk, as well as a missile attack on SA”.
24. She then argues that the publication of a picture of Du Preez rendered him “immediately and visually identifiable to the public”.
25. Malan argues that Du Preez did not use the word “missile” in isolation, “nor did he employ the word in a manner which, when properly and fairly contextualised, could reasonably be reported as a literal prediction of war, bombing, or physical missile attacks against the Republic of South Africa”.
26. She points out that, in the original source video at approximately 03:56 to 04:16, Du Preez expressly and unequivocally qualified the statement as follows: “And you know, it is spiritual… I saw like an attack coming in the nation. Not speaking war, nothing like this, but I saw like an arrow, like a missile attacking the nation. I’m speaking now symbolic.” (Malan’s emphases)
27. And later, “I saw like a strike, almost like an arrow or a missile … whether it’s in the spirit, whatever it is.”
28. Moreover, Malan says Du Preez publicly clarified that the reference to a “missile” meant, “major instability or international financial attack”.
29. “Those qualifications were not peripheral. They were central to the meaning of the statement. They were the very words which distinguished the statement from a literal prediction of warfare, military aggression, physical bombing, bloodshed, or a missile attack against South Africa,” she argues.
30. She opines, “By failing to give proper prominence to the express words ‘not speaking war’ and ‘symbolic’, the publication materially altered the meaning and sting of our client’s statement.”
31. Malan concludes, “The publication’s conduct is … not a mere matter of interpretation, editorial emphasis or permissible journalistic summary. It is a material distortion of the source material, achieved through the omission of critical qualifying language and the adoption of sensationalised literal-war terminology which the source material itself expressly excluded.”
32. In addition to the sections of the Press Code that are allegedly breached, as documented under Point 16 above, Malan adds Section 1.3, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1 and 5.3.
33. She specifies that those “material breaches” include:
a. inaccurate, misleading and unfair reporting;
b. sensationalising the headline;
c. the omission of material context;
d. the failure to distinguish between what was said and what the publication inferred;
e. the publication of a distorted and prejudicial sting which materially altered the meaning of Du Preez’s statements;
f. the failure to give adequate prominence to express qualifying language which excluded the literal-war interpretation; and/or
g. the publication of wording which foreseeably exposed Du Preez to public ridicule, racialised backlash, reputational harm, and threatening commentary.
34. Malan contends that the misleading nature of the article is further demonstrated by the public reaction which followed the publication of the article. Some comments, she submits, demonstrate that members of the public understood the article to mean that Du Preez “had predicted, desired, encouraged, welcomed, or aligned himself with literal missile attacks, bombing, warfare, racial violence, and foreign aggression against South Africa”.
35. For example, such comments include:
a. Du Preez and his followers “badly want those missiles to land on black South Africans” so that they can “take over the whole of South Africa”;
b. “Let him kill us all black and white that’s cool”;
c. “Point it in Pretoria’s direction”;
d. “White people also want to encourage war in SA”; and
e. References to him as a “con artist”, “false pastor/prophet”, “fake pastor/prophet”, “racist”, “crazy”, “drunk”, “drugged”, “charlatan”, “fear mongering”, and as a person who belongs in a mental hospital.
36. In conclusion, Malan extends the complaint by submitting that the matter “implicates not only the constitutional protection afforded to freedom of the press, but also … [Du Preez’s] religious freedom…”
37. While the pastor accepts that the press performs an indispensable constitutional function in a democratic society, and that public figures, including religious leaders, may lawfully be subjected to criticism, scrutiny, disagreement, satire, and robust public debate, Malan says this does not entitle a publication to misstate, distort, sensationalise, or materially decontextualise a person’s words. “The press is entitled to scrutinise public religious figures. It is not entitled to misstate them.”
38. She adds, “Religious speech is also constitutionally protected speech.” In this case, her argument goes, the harm is compounded. “It may not only injure personal reputation, but may also impair religious standing, invite public hostility, inflame prejudice, and expose a person, their family and their community to ridicule, threats and vilification. That is especially so where the publication itself concerns matters capable of inflaming public sentiment, including race, sanctions, foreign intervention, Elon Musk, South African politics, religious prophecy, and alleged threats against the Republic.”
39. Malan concludes that the matter warrants adjudication “not only because of the serious harm caused to our client personally, but also because it raises broader questions concerning responsible media reporting on religious speech…”
Relief sought
40. Du Preez and Malan request the following relief from this office:
a. A finding that the headline, sub-heading, opening paragraph, photograph and/or framing of the article were inaccurate, misleading, unfair, sensationalised and materially decontextualised;
b. An apology (published with appropriate prominence), a correction, a retraction and a clarification of the matters in dispute;
c. An amendment to the headline and the article to accurately reflect the source material (read: he did not predict literal missile attacks, inevitable war, bombing, bloodshed, or a physical military strike against South Africa);
d. A right of reply;
e. Monetary payment for the reputational harm caused to him; and
f. Further or alternative sanction or relief as I consider appropriate.
The publication’s reply to the complaint: proposed apology
- Under the headline, “For the record: Joburg pastor Leon du Preez clarifies ‘missile’ prophecy”, the newspaper proposes to publish, in quite some detail, Du Preez’s clarification that “the premonition was meant to be interpreted figuratively, not literally”.
- The piece ends with the following statement: In our past reporting, the writer incorrectly reported the literal and not figurative meaning of the social media post. The South Africanapologises for the misleading and sensationalised manner in which the article portrayed Leon du Preez’s statements.
- The publication says it was never its intention to mislead its readers or to offend him. “Therefore, we will remove the current article and republish a revised version with an apology.”
- The South African then published its proposed apology, without Du Preez’s or my input (which I shall address in my second finding).
Analysis
- The central questions are whether the article:
a. altered the meaning of what Du Preez had said by interpreting the use of “symbolic” language (read: his reference to a missile attack) literally;
b. properly explained that a missile strike could be avoided; and
c. caused unnecessary harm to his reputation.
46. Other issues are the complaints about the publication of Du Preez’s picture, a right of reply, and the protection of religious speech.
‘Symbolic’ versus ‘literal’
- The article leaves no doubt in the minds of reasonable readers that Du Preez meant his reference to a missile literally. For example:
a. The introductory sentence says that Du Preez “prophesied that a missile will hit the country in the coming months” (rather than saying it “could” hit); and
b. Lower down in the article: “He shared: ‘I saw a missile hit this nation around July…” The pastor never said that – he said he saw something “like” a missile.
48. Notably, the use of the word “like” can be interpreted in more than one way. In one sense, it can denote a comparison (symbolically, as argued by Du Preez). On the other hand, people often use the word not to compare things but rather to accentuate matters (literally). For example, “I was, like, hungry.” In such a case, the pastor could have referred to an actual missile. Therefore, I cannot base my finding on an interpretation of this word in isolation.
49. I believe that Du Preez did use the word symbolically – at least in the beginning of his speech. Here is one such example: “And you know, it is spiritual… I saw like an attack coming in the nation. Not speaking war, nothing like this, but I saw like an arrow, like a missile attacking the nation. I’m speaking now symbolic.”
50. There is no indication in the article of such a qualification.
51.The headline contributed to this distortion. It states, without qualification, that the pastor saw “missile attacks”. What aggravates this misrepresentation is the use of the plural – “attacks”. More than one.
52. However, and this is a big “however”, there is another side to this coin. In the same YouTube video, cited above, Du Preez also said (at 6:20 – 7:00): “‘I will expose every ambush, I will expose and stop every sanction and every tariff, and I will stop the war that is about to come to this nation at the door,’ says the Spirit of the Lord. ‘For there is a war that is waiting at the door,’ says the Lord. And the nation has not seen it, because they have become blinded by their prides. But the Lord is saying, ‘If the church can pray, and hear this prophecy, this calamity will be turned around and this restoration will be turned around and you will not see bloodshed, you will not see sanctions and tariffs, and the world will witness a renewal of a nation by 2029, says the Spirit of God,’ in Jesus’ mighty name.” (my emphases)
53. This is no longer figurative, symbolic and conditional language anymore. It is going to be difficult to interpret the references to a war (twice) and bloodshed figuratively. I can only wonder why the journalist did not report those statements as well. This is yet another omission. It should have been reported, leaving the reader to decide how to interpret the pastor’s message. That would have given balance to the article.
54. By stating the above, Du Preez contradicted himself (“I am not talking war”, versus the above). I therefore conclude that the pastor himself is partly responsible for what he calls a distortion of his message.
Causing unnecessary harm to Du Preez’s reputation
- Given the pastor’s remarks, as documented under Point 52 above, I believe that the blame for any unnecessary harm to his reputation should not be laid at the door of The South African
The publication of Du Preez’s picture
- The article is about Du Preez, and he is a public figure. I do not see how the publication of his picture could have added harm to his reputation.
A right of reply
- I do not believe that The South African was in breach of the Press Code by not giving Du Preez a right of reply – he was speaking in public and the journalist clearly believed that she had quoted him correctly.
The protection of religious speech
- Yes, South Africa’s Constitution does in some sense protect religious speech. Sections15(1) and 15(2) stipulate: “Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion. Religious observances may be conducted at state or state-aided institutions, provided that:
a. those observances follow rules made by the appropriate public authorities;
b. they are conducted on an equitable basis; and
c. attendance at them is free and voluntary.
59.However, this does not mean that religious speech is protected simply because it is religious speech. That would be absurd. Like any other right, this one also requires the responsible use of (religious) speech.
60. The preamble to the Press Code also guarantees freedom of speech (not specifically religious speech) – and attaches some provisions to it.
Monetary payment
- Clause 8.2 of our Complaints Procedures states: “Monetary fines will not be imposed as a penalty for the content of the press”.
Finding
- The introductory sentence says that Du Preez “prophesied that a missile will hit the country in the coming months” (instead of “could” or “might” hit). This is inaccurate and unfair and is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
- The statement that Du Preez said he had seen “a missile hit this nation” is inaccurate and unfair, as he said he saw something “like” a missile. This is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Code.
- The headline is misleading in that it presents missile attacks as a fact, and because it uses the plural (“missile attacks”). This is in breach of Clause 10.1 of the Code.
- The article is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code as it omits to state Du Preez’s:
a. qualifications that he was speaking symbolically – causing him some serious damage to his reputation; and
b. literal references to war (twice) and bloodshed.
66. These are all Tier 2 offences, which constitute serious breaches of the Press Code.
Sanction
- The South African is directed to:
a. apologise to Du Preez for the breaches of the Code as documented under Points 62–64 above, which damaged his reputation unnecessarily, and to correct those mistakes; and
b. report the omissions as documented under Points 65(a) and 65(b) above.
68. This text should:
- be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed or, in the event of such an application, after that ruling;
- be published, with appropriate prominence, in print and on all platforms of the publication where the article was published;
- be published with the apology in the introductory sentence and with a headline including the words “apology” and “Du Preez”;
- refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
- end with the sentence, “Visit org.za for the full finding”;
- be published with the logo of the Press Council; and
- be approved by me (I shall consult with Du Preez before finalising the text).
Caution
- Please note that the sanction above should be read in conjunction with my (separate) finding about the apology. It will make sense to combine this sanction with the one about the apology (which is to follow).
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
19 August 2026
