Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Shaun Mynhardt v Die Burger/Netwerk24

, ,

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint numbers:

  • PCSA 000753
  • PCSA 000754
  • PCSA 000755

Author: Jana van der Merwe

Headlines:

Date lodged: 5 August 2026

Dismissal by the Public Advocate (PA)

  1. The PA, Thabo Leshilo, declined to accept Shaun Mynhardt’s complaints because the latter had ignored requests by the publication to comment but subsequently complained that the reportage was inaccurate.
  2. Leshilo said he contacted the publications’ public deputy editor, Theresa Olivier, who sent him “proof of the various ways the reporter reached out to [Mynhardt] – voice calls, WhatsApp messages, emails and Facebook messenger”.
  3. His conclusion was that “the overwhelming evidence renders [Mynhardt’s] claim unsustainable”.
  4. He motivated his decision, inter alia, by responding: “The fact that you did not take up the opportunity to respond to the questions put to you is fatal. You can’t ignore an offer to respond ahead of publication, which is vital to setting the record straight, then claim afterwards that a story is inaccurate, unbalanced, used unverified information, etc. Journalists are required to contact the subjects of critical reportage in advance precisely to verify their information.”
  5. This case landed on my desk after Mynhardt had appealed the PA’s decision.

My task

  1. I now need is to determine whether Leshilo’s refusal to accept the complaints is justified. If “yes”, I shall make no decisions on the merits of his case; if “no”, a proper adjudication will follow.

Grounds for Mynhardt’s appeal

  1. Mynhardt disputes Netwerk24’s claim that it gave him a reasonable opportunity to comment prior to publication. His main arguments are:

a. While the reporter allegedly sent twelve questions on 30 July 2026 to info@salegendsmuseum.co.za, claiming it was an official contact address listed on the Museum’s Facebook page and website, that address had been removed from both platforms 36 days earlier and had already been inactive and unmonitored for more than a month. Therefore, he never received any communication from the journalist.

b. Merely sending an email does not constitute a genuine and reasonable opportunity to respond if the address was inactive or unmonitored. He asks the Panel to require proof of delivery and to establish whether Netwerk24 verified that the address was operational before relying on it.

c. The allegations were serious enough to require careful verification, as they involved allegations that he had defamed well-known persons. Potentially, such allegations could cause substantial reputational damage.

d. The deadline that the journalist set was unreasonable, even though the first one was extended.

e. Netwerk24 was, by its own account, in continuing contact with him and the museum through social media. Once no response was received, the reporter made no further attempt to contact him through other channels.

8. In short: He says an email sent to an inactive address, coupled with a very short response period and no meaningful follow-up through available channels, does not amount to a reasonable opportunity to comment as required by the Press Code.

Analysis

The central question

  1. The crux of the matter is whether Netwerk24 gave Mynhardt a genuine and reasonable opportunity to respond to the serious allegations, as required by Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.

Invalid email address

  1. I have asked the journalist for proof that her message of July 30 was successfully delivered, as such an email cannot be delivered to an invalid address.
  2. She sent me such proof, adding that it was also the valid and official email address when the first story was done on July 24.

One email?

  1. The Public Advocate is correct in that the publication did more than send only one email to Mynhardt (as documented under Paragraph 2).
  2. On top of that, Netwerk24 has provided me with an abundance of proof that it has tried to contact Mynhardt – without any response from him. How many times should a journalist attempt to get comment if no response is forthcoming?

Unreasonable deadline

  1. I cannot help but wonder how Mynhardt knew about the deadline if he did not receive the email in the first place.

Finding

  1. The appeal is hereby 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

28 September 2026

 

 

 

Related Posts