Leon du Preez v The South African(b)

Complaint: Leon du Preez v The South African

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint number: 000618 (b)

Author: The editor of The South African

Headline: For the record: Joburg pastor Leon du Preez clarifies ‘missile’ prophecy – Johannesburg preacher Leon du Preez’s prophecy about a ‘missile’ attack on South Africa was figurative, and not literal interpretation

Publication Date: 7 July 2026

Date lodged: 7 July 2026

Link to apology: https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/corrections-clarifications/for-the-record-joburg-pastor-leon-du-preez-clarifies-missile-prophecy/

 

A. IN GENERAL

Particulars

1. The complaint is about The South African’s publication of an apology for the story headlined, Jozi pastor ‘predicted’ Elon Musk’s sanctions, SA ‘missile attacks’ (published on 24 April 2026).
2. This apology was published before Du Preez has had an opportunity to respond to its wording, and without the publication having sought my condonation.
3. Readers are referred to my adjudication of that complaint, which is published on our website.[1]
4. In the meantime, The South African has removed both the original article and its apology.
5. In further correspondence, The South African offers to work with Du Preez’s representatives to amend the wording of the original article and subsequent apology until all parties are satisfied that the text fairly reflects his position – on condition that it does not constitute an admission that it has breached the Press Code.

6. Du Preez rejects this offer, hence this second finding.

7. This adjudication is based on correspondence by Vogel Malan Incorporated, on behalf of pastor Leon du Preez, and Bianca de Jongh, operations director of The South African.

The apology

8. The full text of the apology reads as follows:

a. “Johannesburg preacher Leon du Preez has set the record straight on his prophecy predicting a ‘missile attack’ on South Africa.

b. “Du Preez – who leads the Encounter Christian Church based in Centurion – has clarified that the premonition was meant to be interpreted figuratively, not literally.

c. “In a statement to The South African, Leon du Preez clarified his prophecy about ‘missiles’.

d. “In April, the Johannesburg pastor posted on Facebook: ‘I saw a missile [meaning major instability or international financial attack] hit this nation around July, and the Lord then said, Pray against sanctions. The instruction was for the church to repent, call for prayer meetings and get back into unity.’

e. “He added: ‘Otherwise, sanctions are coming…. I’m warning you again! Church – call for mass prayer; humble yourselves, and get united!’

f. “Du Preez has set the record straight, stating that his prophecy about ‘missiles’ was figurative, not literal. Du Preez clarified that he had used figurative, symbolic and conditional language.

g. . “He shared in a sermon: ‘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.’

h.  “He further states: ‘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.

i.  “In a follow-up Facebook post, Leon du Preez revealed the interpretation of his ‘missile’ prophecy. He shared: ‘The central message of the prophecy was never destruction; it was intercession. It was a call to the Church of South Africa to unite in prayer, humility, and spiritual responsibility, with the clear understanding that the outcomes shown were conditional and could be averted.’

j.  “In our past reporting, the writer incorrectly reported the literal and not figurative meaning of the social media post.

k. “The South African apologises for the misleading and sensationalised manner in which the article portrayed Leon du Preez’s statements.”

B. DU PREEZ

The complaint

9. Du Preez rejects this apology, arguing that the publication failed to remedy the original complaint and, instead, repeated and aggravated the alleged inaccuracies, causing further harm to his dignity, reputation, religious standing, and public ministry.
10. He emphasises that he did not have an opportunity to properly consider the proposal, and the complaint therefore remained unresolved.
11. The crux of his rejection of the apology is that it presents him as correcting or clarifying his own statements, rather than acknowledging that The South Africanhad inaccurately reported them.
12. The pastor adds that the apology falsely states that he has provided “a statement to The South African”. He says he never communicated directly with the publication and that the information originated solely from formal legal submissions made by his attorneys to the Press Council. This false attribution creates the misleading impression of direct engagement and consent while concealing that the material formed part of an unresolved complaint against the publication, he submits.
13. He also contends that the apology repeats the original misleading association between him and a literal missile attack, despite his consistent position that his sermon referred only to spiritual and symbolic imagery rather than physical warfare.
14. Moreover, it is incorrect to suggest that he later “set the record straight” – he says he never changed his interpretation.
15. Du Preez is also critical of the fact that the apology was published at the very end of the text in smaller italicised text, while the headline, photograph, opening paragraphs, and repeated references to missiles remained prominent. These issues, he submits, render the apology ineffective.
16. In conclusion, he says that the original article remains publicly accessible (at the time of his response – it was removed later) without any prominent correction, retraction, apology, or effective link to the subsequent publication. Instead of reducing the harm, the apology expanded it, which increased the online visibility of the disputed allegations. The cumulative effect, he argues, is that he continues to be portrayed as someone who must explain or defend himself, while The South Africanminimizes its own responsibility for the original inaccuracies – this constitutes fresh and serious breaches requiring independent adjudication and a remedy proportionate to the cumulative harm caused, he contends.

Alleged breaches of the Press Code

17. Du Preez submits that the apology, together with the continued availability of the original article, is in breach of the Code because it:

a. incorrectly attributes statements to him and falsely presents them as a later clarification (Clause 1.1 of the Press Code);

b. distorts the chronology of events and omits to report that he did not have a literal war in mind (Clause 1.2);

c. presents a false narrative as fact by claiming he later reinterpreted a missile-attack prophecy, while there was evidence that he had never interpreted his vision literally (Clause 1.3);

d. fails to give him a reasonable opportunity to respond before publishing the apology (Clauses 1.7 and 1.8);

e. does not provide a prompt or sufficiently prominent correction across all platforms (Clause 1.10);

f. leaves the original online article available without clearly indicating it was inaccurate or linking to the correction (Clause 1.11);

g. fails to adequately protect his dignity and reputation (Clause 3.3); and

h. uses a misleading headline, sub-headline and photograph that reinforce the inaccurate association, instead of making clear that the publication, and not him, was correcting an error (Clauses 10.1 and 10.2).

Relief sought

18. Du Preez:

a. submits that these breaches constitute, at a minimum, a Tier 2 serious breach under our office’s Complaints Procedures, warranting remedies such as a prominently displayed correction, retraction, reprimand, and an apology approved by me;

b. requests that I direct The South African to either remove the original article or have it prominently marked as inaccurate, with an immediate link or redirect to a proper correction and apology; and that equivalent corrective notices be published on every social-media and online platform used to distribute the original report;

c. asks that the sanction be published on all the platforms where the content was distributed;

d. requests a right of reply;

e. asks for ancillary directions as are necessary to ensure that no remaining version, excerpt, social media post, search preview, or author-shared version continues to repeat the misleading allegation without an immediate correction;

f. suggests that a suitable remedial headline would read, ‘CORRECTION AND APOLOGY: THE SOUTH AFRICAN MISREPRESENTED LEON DU PREEZ’S SYMBOLIC STATEMENT AS A LITERAL MISSILE ATTACK PROPHECY’; and

g. says the correction should state prominently that the original source expressly described the image as spiritual, symbolic and unrelated to war; that the inaccurate literal-war framing was the publication’s error; that he did not later change or backtrack from his original meaning; and that The South African apologises for the consequent harm done to his dignity, reputation, religious standing and family.

C. THE PUBLICATION

‘Statement to The South African’

19. The publication admits that its information came from Du Preez’s Facebook posts and from formal legal submissions to the Press Council, rather than from a direct statement to it, as stated in the apology. It says it is “willing to correct this wording promptly, as an editorial/production inaccuracy rather than any deliberate attempt to mislead, and without this correction constituting an admission of a Code breach”.

Headline, framing, and prominence of the correction

20. The publication says that, without admitting a breach of the Press Code, it has taken the apology offline as an interim measure. It adds that it is willing to revise the headline and republish the correction and apology with greater prominence once an agreed wording has been reached.

Consistency of Du Preez’s position

21. The publication submits the apology does not suggest that Du Preez changed his position at any stage: “His own sermon and Facebook material, embedded in the article itself, described the prophecy as symbolic from the outset.”

Response to the alleged breaches of the Press Code

22. The South African does not admit any breach of the Press Code. However, it states it is willing to:

a. amend the “statement to The South African” wording;

b. make the chronology explicit rather than implicit;

c. amend the framing so it does not suggest reinterpretation;

d. increase the prominence of the correction;

e. recognise that the reportage may have caused Du Preez distress and agree to remedial wording that addresses this directly;

f. revise the framing of the headline; and

g. revisit image placement as part of an agreed remedy.

Response to relief sought

23. The publication says that it:

a. has already removed both the original article and the correction/apology;

b. is willing to engage directly and promptly with Vogel Malan to either produce a single, new corrective article, replacing both prior publications, which:

i. accurately reflects Du Preez’s stated position, including the qualifying context that the “missile” reference was symbolic/financial, rather than literal;

ii. correctly describes the source of that clarification (read: his public statements and, where relevant, the Press Council process) rather than attributing it to a direct statement to the publication; and

iii. presents any correction or apology with prominence proportionate to the original allegation, placing it near the top of the piece rather than at the end; or, alternatively

iv. publish a revised version of the original article, amended to include the qualifying context, published together with a separate, clearly linked correction notice that correctly describes the source of the clarification and is given prominence proportionate to the original allegation, placed near the top of that notice rather than at its foot;

c. is willing to share such articles on relevant social media platforms, and to keep both articles offline until such agreement is reached, or until I direct otherwise, whichever comes first.

In conclusion

24. The publication submits that, given the goodwill measures proposed above, a fully contested adjudication is unnecessary and invites Du Preez’s representatives to engage on the proposed wording with a view to a prompt resolution. It concludes: “We hope this can be achieved by agreement rather than through further contested proceedings.”
25. DU PREEZ’S REJOINDER

Rejection of The South African’s submission

25. Du Preez rejects the publication’s proposal, as documented under Point 24 above, and persists in his request for adjudication.
26. While I am not going to duplicate his arguments here, it should be noted that Du Preez says the following is now common cause:

a. The journalist knew from the outset that the “missile” reference was figurative;

b. The publication nevertheless made a deliberate editorial choice to foreground that language;

c. He never changed his symbolic meaning;

d. The apology falsely described his material as a statement made to The South African;

e. The headline and framing placed the corrective burden on him;

f. The apology had limited prominence; and

g. The original article remained live when the supplementary complaint was delivered – it was only removed 27 calendar days after publication.

27. Malan submits: “Those are not incidental concessions. They establish the knowledge, inaccuracy, misleading chronology, defective attribution, inadequate prominence and continuing online non-compliance complained of. Repeating ‘without admission’ after conceding the constituent facts does not answer the Press Code. The response is accordingly not a rebuttal of the complaint. It is an evidentiary roadmap to the publication’s own non-compliance.”

28. She then summarises the gist of Du Preez’s complaint as follows: “The [apology] accordingly committed the very wrong it purported to remedy: it published a fresh inaccuracy, repeated the harmful sting, distorted the chronology, shifted responsibility to our client and concealed the publication’s own error. It aggravated rather than cured the original prejudice.”

Further relief sought

29. Du Preez requests that this office:

a. reject The South African‘s contention that the matter has been cured, settled or rendered unnecessary for adjudication;

b. find that the apology does not constitute a prompt, accurate or appropriately prominent correction or apology and that it constitutes a breach of various Clauses of the Press Code;

c. find that the breaches are serious, aggravated by the publication’s prior knowledge and repetition of its mistakes, and that it warrants a Tier 2 sanction;

d. reprimand the publication and directs it to publish and permanently maintain a stand-alone correction, retraction and unequivocal apology in wording approved by me;

e. direct that the headline expressly identifies the publication as a correction and apology to him and state that The South African, and not he, has mischaracterised his original symbolic statement as a literal missile-attack prediction;

f. direct prominent placement on the home or landing page, at or through the original article URL and the apology URL, and on every social-media and online platform used to distribute either publication, together with the Press Council stamp and a link to the ruling;

g. direct that he should be given a right of reply;

h. direct The South African to furnish complete proof of compliance in respect of every relevant URL, social-media account, journalist or freelancer account and publication channel within the period determined by me; and

i. order the publication to cover all his legal costs.

E. ANALYSIS

In general

30. I accept that The South African has acted in good faith, even though Du Preez disagrees with me on this issue, and I appreciate that it has opted to publish a correction (in the headline) and an apology (albeit at the end of the text).
31. However, the question is whether the correction and the apology were sufficient.
32. It is risky to publish an apology without approval by this office. This can easily result in a new complaint, which is the last thing that any party wants – an apology arising from a previous apology. This is exactly what has happened in this case. It is quite an awkward situation.

The central question

33. The crux of the matter is whether the published apology has successfully remedied the mistakes in the original report, or whether it instead has repeated and aggravated the alleged inaccuracies.

Finding, sanction regarding the original article

34. I first need to turn to my finding on the original story, as it is going to impact my current ruling. Dated 19 August 2026, it reads as follows:

a. “The introductory sentence says that Du Preez “prophesied that a missile will hit the country in the coming months” (instead of could hit). This is inaccurate and unfair and is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.

b. “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.

c. “The headline is misleading in that it presents missile attacks as a fact, and because of the use of the plural (“missile attacks”). This is in breach of Clause 10.1 of the Code.

d. “The article is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code as it omits to state Du Preez’s:

i. qualifications that he was speaking symbolically – causing him some serious damage to his reputation; and

ii. literal references to war (twice) and bloodshed.

35 I directed The South African to:

a. apologise to Du Preez for the breaches of the Code as documented under Points 34(a) to 34(c) above, which damaged his reputation unnecessarily, and to correct those mistakes; and

b. report the omissions as documented under Point 34(d) above.

36. The question is whether the apology satisfies the sanction. For that, I now turn to the specific issues.

‘Clarify’, ‘setting the record straight’, ‘changing his position’

37. Du Preez submits that the use of the word “clarifies” and the phrase “setting the record straight” imply that he has corrected his own statements and that he has changed his interpretation of the matter – while the publication failed to state that its reportage was inaccurate. In other words, the pastor says the apology suggests that he has corrected his statements, instead of acknowledging that it was the article that was in error.
38. I cannot agree with the pastor on this issue. The original article sparked quite a debate, which constitutes the context in which the apology was published. The apology reads, “In our past reporting, the writer incorrectly reported the literal and not figurative meaning of the social media post. The South African apologises for the misleading and sensationalised manner in which the article portrayed Leon du Preez’s statements.”
39. This leaves no doubt as to who was at fault – the publication. Therefore, I do not believe that it was reasonable to conclude that the apology suggests that he has changed his position.

Limited prominence

40. When I googled the apology, it had already been removed. Therefore, I cannot comment on the question whether the apology was published prominently. I do agree with Du Preez, though, that the apology should have been made upfront. My sanction will reflect this opinion.

Statement to The South African

41. The apology states that Du Preez clarified the matter “in a statement to The South African” – which the pastor denies.
42. The publication admits “that the clarifying material derived from his own public Facebook posts and sermon, together with formal legal submissions to the Press Council, rather than a direct statement to this publication”. De Jongh writes, “We are willing to correct this wording promptly, as an editorial/production inaccuracy rather than any deliberate attempt to mislead, and without this correction constituting an admission of a Code breach.”
43. I have no way of establishing whether this was a “deliberate” attempt to mislead. It was nevertheless misleading.
44. I note, with some concern, that The South African has consistently been unwilling to accept that its reportage was in breach of the Press Code.

Reinforcing the misleading association

45. This part of the complaint has no basis. There is nothing in the apology that suggests that Du Preez meant that the “missile attacks” were to be understood literally. None whatsoever. On the contrary, that is what the apology was all about.

Dignity, reputation

46. Based on the above, I have no reason to believe that the apology has contributed to even more harm done to Du Preez’s dignity and reputation.

Headline, sub-headline, picture

47. The headline and sub-headline read, For the record: Joburg pastor Leon du Preez clarifies ‘missile’ prophecy – Johannesburg preacher Leon du Preez’s prophecy about a ‘missile’ attack on South Africa was figurative, and not literal interpretation.
48. Given my finding, documented under Points 38 and 39 above, I do not believe that there is anything wrong with this wording.
49. The same applies to the publication of Du Preez’s picture.

Original article still accessible

50. Both the original article and the apology were removed. While it could have been taken off earlier, there is no point in belabouring this matter any further.

Monetary compensation

51. Clause 8.2 of our Complaints Procedures states: “Monetary fines will not be imposed as a penalty for the content of the press”.

Finding

52. The assertion that Du Preez has clarified the matter “in a statement to The South African” is inaccurate and therefore in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code which states, “The media shall report news truthfully, accurately and fairly.” This is a Tier 1 breach of the Code.
53. The rest of the complaint is dismissed.

Sanction

54. The South African is reprimanded for falsely reporting that Du Preez communicated a statement to the publication.
55. The above should:

• be published in conjunction with the sanction regarding the original article, as documented under Point 35 above;
• 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 in print and on all platforms of the publication where the article was published;
• be published with appropriate prominence, with the words “apology” and “Du Preez” in the headline and with the word apology in the introductory sentence;
• 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.)

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

[1] Presscouncil.org.za