Russell Darren Rodez vs Media24
BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA
In the matter between:
Russell Darren Rodez B Applicant
and
Media24 Respondent
Matter No: 32291
DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
1. This is an application by Mr Darren de Rodez Benavent Russel (applicant) against a Ruling by the Ombud of the Press Council of South Africa dated 14 October 2025. The applicant’s complaint was lodged against Media24 (the respondent). The Ombud’s Ruling, which was in confirmation of the decision of the Public Advocate, was that the complaint was lodged out of time.
2. In his application, the applicant contends that the issue of the timing of the complaint was never raised by the Public Advocate, and that it was only raised more than a year later. He also argues that because the Council kept on accepting submissions from him, it meant that the matter was alive.
3. It appears that the applicant submitted his complaint on 22 August 2024, which was more than two years out of time.
Clause 1.3 of the Complaints Procedures provides that a “complaint shall be made as soon as possible, but not later than 20 working days after the date of publication giving rise to the complaint.” It appears that the complaint was lodged more than two years after the dates of publication of the articles concerned. No persuasive explanation was provided for the delay. An entertainment of a complaint lodged so hopelessly out of time would bring the process of the adjudication of complaints into disrepute. His explanation that he was incarcerated, was not aware of the procedure and that he was busy defending himself in courts are not enough; the period is too long.
4. In light of the above, the Public Advocate declined to accept the complaint; for the same reason, the Ombud upheld the decision of the Public Advocate, and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
5. The applicant complained about several articles that appeared in the media over years, which reported his alleged dishonest conduct.
6. In his Ruling, dated 14 October 2025, the Ombud points out that the applicant’s “first approach to the Press Council was two years after the first articles were published and approximately a year after the last article under complaint”. In light of the above, both the Public Advocate and the Ombud’s Ruling were correct in not accepting the complaint.
Dated this 29th day of October 2025
B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel
