Kobus Loots vs Overstrand Herald

Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August

26 March 2026

Finding: Complaint 32219

Publication: Overstrand Herald

Article 1:

Date of publication: 8 May 2025

Author: Overstrand editorial staff

Headline:[1]

Webtuiste gesluit na dreigemente van bom, verkragtig (ja, in Kleinmond)

(Website closed after threats of bomb, rape (yes, in Kleinmond)

Article 2:

Date of publication: 15 May 2025

Author: Gerard Grobler

Headline:[2]

Dit was nie ek nie, sê hooffiguur in kuberdrama

(It wasn’t me, says main character in cyber drama)

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1JJogHHhxe/

Particulars

This finding is based on a written complaint by Mr Kobus Loots; a written response by the Editor and Publisher of Overstrand Herald, Mr Gerard Grobler; and a written reply by Mr Loots.

Complaint

The complainant submits that the articles are in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, 3.1, 3.3, 3.5 and 10.1 of the Press Code.

1. Summary of articles

Article 1:

1.1. This article reports that police are currently investigating charges of cyber extortion, sexual harassment and bomb threats in connection with posts on the Overstrand Herald website and emails to its employees.

1.1.1. The publication initially closed its website repeatedly because of the posts, which contained sexual undertones and offensive language. It subsequently decided to close the website while the police investigation was being conducted.

1.1.2. According to publisher Gerard Grobler, its priority was the personal safety of its employees and the protection of the personal information of its subscribers.

1.1.3. He said the publication has “an idea” where the attacks are coming from, but that the police investigation will have to point out who is responsible.[3]

Article 2:

1.2. The article reports that police confirmed that an investigation was under way into the “cyber drama” that has paralysed the Overstrand Herald website.

1.2.1. An unknown person or persons reportedly gained access to the website. Dozens of posts were subsequently placed and numerous emails were sent to employees of the publication.

1.2.2. The main thrust of these posts and emails was that the publication should dismiss a certain female employee or else the personal attacks and posts on the website would continue.

1.2.3. The article notes that the posts often included threats of rape and even bomb threats. As a result, the publication decided to close its website.

1.2.4. In the meantime, it came to light that the female employee who was the target of the threats reportedly ended a relationship with a male friend, Kobus Loots, in 2024. However, according to her, he did not want to accept this.

1.2.5. In December 2024, she started receiving disturbing messages that referred to their friendship and to her new relationship with someone else. She assumed that these were from Loots.

1.2.6. The person was familiar with her place of residence and her movements, and even knew her family: “Dit opsigself beperk die lys van moontlike skuldiges tot slegs ’n paar mense.” (“This in itself narrows the list of possible culprits to just a few people.”)

1.2.7. Loots reportedly denied that he had anything to do with the disruption of the Overstrand Herald website and the personal attacks, and has apparently appointed a lawyer.

1.2.8. The article points out that Loots is originally from Pretoria but that he now lives in Kleinmond. It further notes that he describes himself as a cloud engineer in a social media profile.

1.2.9. The article reports that Overstrand Herald staff have already given statements to the police and that copies of the posts and emails have been handed over as well. A specialist has also been called in to follow the trail of the posts and emails.

2. Arguments

Kobus Loots

2.1. The complainant submits that the front-page headline published on 15 May 2025 is misleading in two ways: firstly, the publication did not talk to him and thereby denied him an opportunity to say it was not him; secondly, he says he is not even a suspect with the police, “let alone the main suspect”.[4]

2.1.1. He also objects to the publication of a photograph of him next to the headline. He says it was published without his consent and that he was not notified about the photograph either.

2.2. The complainant makes a similar point in relation to the photograph published on page 7. He says he is clearly visible on the page where the article describes what the suspect did and contends that this causes readers to associate him with the allegations.

2.2.1. He refers in particular to the following sentence in the article: “Die dikwels walglike plasings het dreigemente van verkragting en selfs bom-dreigemente ingesluit.” (“The often disgusting posts included threats of rape and even bomb threats”)

2.2.2. The complainant takes issue with the following sentence, too: “Dit het intussen duidelik geword dat die betrokke werknemer van die Herald in 2024 ‘n vriendskap met ‘n mansvriend, Kobus Loots, beëindig het.” (“It has meanwhile become clear that the Herald employee in question terminated a friendship with a male friend, Kobus Loots, in 2024”)

2.2.3. He says he was clearly identified by name without his consent and without hearing his side of the matter.

2.2.4. The complainant objects to the following sentence as well: “Loots het vandeesweek ontken dat hy enigsins iets met die ontwrigting van die koerant se webtuiste en die persoonlike aanvalle te doen het.” (“Loots denied this week that he had anything to do with the disruption of the newspaper’s website and the personal attacks”)

2.2.5. He submits that he did not have an opportunity to deny his involvement because the publication did not contact him. He further claims that this sentence falsely suggests that the publication gave him an opportunity to state his side of the story.

2.3. The complainant further complains about the following part of the article: “Loots is oorspronklik van Pretoria, maar woon al ’n tyd lank in ’n woonstel in Kleinmond se middedorp. Loots beskryf homself op sy sosiale media profiel as ’n sg. Cloud Engineer. In eenvoudige terme ’n rekenaarprogrameerder wat tans ’n internskap doen by ’n groot rekenaarmaatskappy in Pretoria.” (“Loots is originally from Pretoria, but has been living in an apartment in Kleinmond’s town centre for some time. Loots describes himself on his social media profile as a so-called Cloud Engineer. In simple terms, a computer programmer who is currently doing an internship at a large computer company in Pretoria”)

2.3.1. He says the publication “did everything” to clearly identify him and even pointed out where he lives and works. As a result, he claims, he has already been harassed by an unknown member of the public.

2.4. The complainant adds that the article in question followed another article published the previous week, on 8 May 2025, that “all but identified” him – also without his consent and without asking for his side of the matter.

2.4.1. He says the second article clearly identifies him and shares more than what can be regarded as reasonable and in the public interest.

2.5. The complainant requests a right of reply to allow him to provide his side of the story.

2.5.1. He also wants the publication to apologise for publishing his name, address and “other personal identifiable information” without his consent and without first enquiring about his side of the matter.

2.5.2. He wants the apology and the right of reply to be published in print and on the Facebook version of the article.

Overstrand Herald

2.6. The respondent sketched the background to the articles and says they were published after a female employee of the publication was repeatedly sexually harassed for more than two months.

2.6.1. It says that offensive references to the employee were posted on its website and the publication was threatened that it would face certain consequences if it did not dismiss her.

2.6.2. The result was that the employee left her place of residence and the publication closed its website. She also left the publication in the hope that the harassment would stop, but it continued.

2.7. The respondent added that it got to know the complainant through its then employee and that, based on their friendship, it had asked him on two occasions to assist with adjustments to its website settings related to Amazon.

2.7.1. It contends that he therefore had thorough knowledge of how the website of the publication works.

2.8. The respondent says the complainant was repeatedly confronted by its then employee and her parents about the events in question and the matter was discussed with his parents, too. However, he consistently denied any involvement.

2.8.1. The respondent and its now former employee have laid criminal charges against the complainant with the Kleinmond police on the grounds that they suspect that he could be behind the threats.

2.8.2. According to the publication, it is therefore simply not true that the complainant is not part of the police investigation and describes him as a person of interest.

2.9. The respondent denies that the complainant was “all but identified” in the first report on 8 May 2025, and states that his name was not mentioned at all.

2.9.1. It adds that he gave no indication that he was offended by this report and did not contact the publication or object to the tenor of the report.

2.10. The respondent subsequently met the complainant’s pastor, “probably the person in Kleinmond with whom he has the closest relationship”.

2.10.1. The pastor said he had made it clear to the complainant that the allegations against him were serious. However, according to the pastor, the complainant insisted that he was not behind the threats.

2.11. The respondent goes on to say that the report of 15 May 2025 only refers to the complainant as a male friend of its then employee and that she ended their friendship in 2024. It submits that this is a fact and that the complainant does not deny it.

2.11.1. According to the publication, the article makes it very clear that the complainant claims that he is not “the culprit” and points out that the police investigation is continuing.

Kobus Loots

2.12. The complainant asks the respondent to prove its claim that cases were opened with the police by providing the relevant case numbers and the name of the police station where these cases were opened.

2.12.1. He says that failing to do so means that a blatant lie was published on 15 May 2025. He states that this part of his complaint will become invalid only if the publication provides case numbers and these are confirmed with the police.

2.13. The complainant acknowledges that he helped the respondent with its website and says he did this as a free service.

2.13.1. He adds that he only worked on the publication’s Amazon Web Services, which uses two-factor authentication. He says this means that the only way to access these services is when he gets the authentication pin from the Overstrand Herald editor.

2.13.2. He says he never touched the website of the publication without the editor’s supervision. From what he understands, he says, whoever placed these threats and remarks on the website used “a freely accessible feature”.

2.13.3. He agrees that the harassment of the former employee of the publication is “horrible” and hopes the perpetrator is caught if a case was indeed opened with the police. He says this will clear his name.

2.14. The complainant reiterates that the publication acted irresponsibly and unethically by not asking for his side of the story. Instead, he says, it chose to unconditionally believe its former employee and her parents that he is the guilty party even though there is no evidence.

3. Discussion

3.1. Firstly, it must be noted that although the complainant refers to two articles published on 8 and 15 May 2025, he refers specifically to only one complaint regarding the first article (see Footnote 4).

3.2. Secondly, both the complainant and the respondent raise various issues that fall outside the scope of the Press Code. However, the ambit of the Press Ombud’s office is limited to ethical breaches of the Press Code by subscriber publications.

3.2.1. All matters that do not relate directly to the Press Code have therefore been disregarded for the purpose of adjudicating this complaint.

3.3. Article 1: There is no substance in the claim that the article published on 8 May 2025 “all but identified” the complainant. His name was not mentioned in the article on page 2 and the article does not provide any details that identify him in any way.

3.3.1. Furthermore, the headline refers in general terms to the closure of the Overstrand Herald website due to the rape and bomb threats, and accurately reflects the content of the article.

3.3.2. In view of the above, the article is not in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.5. 1.8, 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5 nor does the headline violate Clause 10.1 of the Press Code.

3.3.3. And, while not specifically mentioned in the complaint, the article on page 3, “Polisie ondersoek dreigemente” (“Police investigate threats”), does not identify the complainant either.

3.3.4. In addition, the article avoids the use of gender-specific pronouns and instead refers at various points to the unknown perpetrator as “hy/sy” (“he/she”).

3.3.5. In a similar vein, the article makes general references to “die … afsender(s)” (“the … sender(s)”) of the threatening messages and to “die persoon(e)” (“the person(s)”) behind the bomb and rape threats.

3.3.6. Based on the above, there is no breach of the Press Code in this article either.

3.4. Article 2: The key aspects of the complaint about this article are, firstly, that the publication identified the complainant by naming him and publishing a photograph of him and, secondly, that it did so without giving him an opportunity to give his side of the story.

3.4.1. Regarding the first part of the complaint, it must be noted that the article starts off by reporting on a police investigation into various posts on the Overstrand Herald website after an unknown individual or individuals gained access to it.

3.4.2. It further reports that the posts and emails called on the publication to dismiss a certain female employee or else the posts – which included rape and bomb threats – would continue.

3.4.3. The article then goes on to refer to the friendship between the complainant and the employee, which apparently ended on bad terms. It also notes that whoever is behind the posts and messages is familiar with certain personal information about the employee.

3.4.4. However, nowhere does the article directly accuse the complainant of being behind the posts on the Overstrand Herald website or the emails sent to various staff members. In fact, it notes that he denies having anything to do with the posts and messages (see point 1.2.7).

3.4.5. Nevertheless, the complainant raises a valid question: Was the publication justified in identifying the complainant and associating him – even if only by implication – with the posts and messages?

3.4.6. Of course, it is not the role of the Press Ombud’s office to make a pronouncement on whether or not the complainant does indeed have anything to do with the posts and messages. That matter is outside its purview and is best left to the criminal justice system.

3.4.7. The issue that does concern the Press Ombud is whether or not it was reasonable for the publication to identify the complainant in the article on the basis of the information at its disposal.

3.4.8. There does indeed appear to be sufficient grounds to do so. For one, the article notes that the perpetrator is familiar with the movements of the employee who was threatened and knows where she lives, and even knows her family: “Dit opsigself beperk die lys van moontlike skuldiges tot slegs ’n paar mense.” (“This in itself narrows the list of possible culprits to just a few people.”)

3.4.9. Furthermore, an editorial note at the foot of the article points out that the complainant is a computer programmer. The respondent subsequently points out in its reply to the complainant that he assisted the publication with adjustments to its website settings on two occasions (see point 2.7).

3.4.10. And, most importantly, the respondent and the now former Overstrand Herald employee laid criminal charges against the complainant with the Kleinmond police because they suspect that he could be behind the threats (point 2.8.1). As a result, it is reasonable for the publication to regard Loots as a person of interest in the police investigation.

3.4.11. In light of the above, there are sufficient grounds to refer to the complainant in the headline as the “hooffiguur in kuberdrama” (“main character in cyber drama”). It is against this background, too, that the publication includes a photograph of the complainant.

3.4.12. There is no reason for the complainant to question whether the respondent and its former employee did indeed lay criminal charges against him. The publication first refers to the charges in the article published on 8 May 2025 (point 1.1).

3.4.13. The follow-up article published on 15 May 2025 subsequently reports that Overstrand Herald staff gave statements to the police and handed copies of the posts, emails and other relevant digital information to the police (point 1.2.9).

3.4.14. Based on the above, the article is not in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code nor is the headline and photograph in breach of Clause 10.1 of the Press Code.

3.5. The complainant denies that he was given an opportunity to respond to the article (see points 2.2.4 and 2.2.5).

3.5.1. The article certainly gives the impression that he was personally offered a right of reply: “Loots het vandeesweek ontken dat hy enigsins iets met die ontwrigting van die koerant se webtuiste en die persoonlike aanvalle te doen het.” (“Loots denied this week that he had anything to do with the disruption of the newspaper’s website and the personal attacks”)

3.5.2. According to the respondent, however, this denial is based on a discussion between the editor and the complainant’s pastor. During this discussion, the pastor informed the publication that the complainant insists that he was not behind the threats (see point 2.10.1).

3.5.3. It remains a matter of concern, though, that the publication did not approach the complainant directly for his comment. It does not state in the article or in its response to the complaint that it was unable to contact or obtain comment from him.

3.5.4. Furthermore, the publication notes in the article that the complainant appointed a lawyer to represent him. It does not offer an explanation either about why it did not approach the complainant’s lawyer in an effort to obtain comment from the complainant.

3.5.5. And, even if the complainant’s denial by way of his pastor is accepted, the question remains whether that amounts to an effective opportunity for the complainant to give his views as the subject of critical reportage.

3.5.6. The general denial published does not address any other issues raised in the article, arguably depriving the complainant of an opportunity to respond adequately to all the aspects that relate to him.

3.5.7. In light of the above, the article does not sufficiently meet the requirements of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.

3.6. The complainant further claims that the article is in breach of Clause 3.1, presumably on the grounds that he believes it does not take sufficient care in matters involving his private life.

3.6.1. However, this clause makes provision for the right to privacy to be overridden if there is legitimate public interest. In this instance, there are reasonable grounds to do so.

3.6.2. Firstly, reporting on a threat of rape is certainly a matter that is in the public interest. The rate of sexual violence in South Africa is among the highest in the world. According to the South African Police Service’s quarterly crime statistics, 11 430 rape cases were recorded between October-December 2025; the total number of sexual offences during this period was 14 547.[5]

3.6.3. Secondly, reporting on a bomb threat is also in the public interest. According to crime analyst and security expert Thabang Bogopa, such a threat is a priority crime due to the potential danger it poses and because of its capacity to disrupt the daily activities of the members of the public and various institutions of society.[6]

3.6.4. And while the article does not directly accuse the complainant of being behind the rape and bomb threats, both the respondent and the former Overstrand Herald employee have laid criminal charges against the complainant with the Kleinmond police on the grounds that they suspect that he could be behind the threats.

3.6.5. Based on the information above, the article is of legitimate interest or importance to members of the public and is therefore not in breach of Clause 3.1 of the Press Code.

3.7. The complainant maintains that the article is in breach of Clause 3.3, presumably on the grounds that he believes it does not take sufficient care in matters involving his dignity and reputation.

3.7.1. However, this consideration can be overridden on a number of grounds, including that the matter is in the public interest and that the facts are true or reasonably true. These aspects have been addressed adequately under point 3.6 above.

3.8. The complainant further submits that the article is in breach of Clause 3.5, which seeks to prevent an intrusion into the privacy and safety of the person who is the subject of an article.

3.8.1. The complainant claims that the article points out where he lives and works (point 2.3.1) and argues that it shares more than what can be regarded as reasonable and in the public interest (point 2.4.1). These aspects of the complaint are not entirely without merit.

3.8.2. Firstly, it would have been sufficient to simply report that the complainant lives in Kleinmond. However, the article provides some additional details about his place of residence.

3.8.3. Nevertheless, the article stops short of violating this clause by not publishing the exact address of the complainant’s residence.

3.8.4. Secondly, it is not clear how the reference to the fact that the complainant was doing an internship at a large computer company in Pretoria at the time of publication is relevant or in the public interest.

3.8.5. Be that as it may, this information was obtained from the complainant’s social media profile and, as such, was therefore already in the public domain.

3.8.6. In short, while the article comes close to disregarding the injunction of Clause 3.5 to “only disclose sufficient personal information to identify the person being reported on”, it does not publish the exact details of the complainant’s residential address and refers to information about his workplace that is in the public domain.

3.8.7. As a result, the article sufficiently meets the requirements of this clause.

3.9. Regarding the complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.5 of the Press Code, the complainant does not provide any specific details to support his claim. In any case, this aspect of the complaint was dealt with more appropriately under Clause 3.

4. Findings

Article 1:

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.8, 3.1, 3.3, 3.5 and 10.1 of the Press Code is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.3 to 3.3.2 of my Discussion.

Article 2:

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 10.1 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.4 to 3.4.14 of my Discussion.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 is upheld for the reasons outlined in points 3.5 to 3.5.7 of my Discussion.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 3.1 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.6.1 to 3.6.5 of my Discussion.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 3.3 is dismissed for the reason stated in point 3.7.1 of my Discussion.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 3.5 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.8.1 to 3.8.7 of my Discussion.

Firstly, Overstrand Herald is required to publish an apology to the complainant for breaching Clause 1.8.

Secondly, Overstrand Herald should give the complainant the right to reply to those aspects of the article that refer to him. If there is a dispute between the parties about the content and length of the reply, this should be referred to me for settlement.

Thirdly, the apology and the right of reply should be approved by me prior to publication.

Fourthly, the respondent must update the article and should publish a note under the headline: “NOTE: This article has been updated. See Editor’s Note below, including an apology to Kobus Loots.” The Editor’s Note should state when and how the article has been updated, and should include the full apology to Loots as directed above as well as his right of reply.

Fifthly, the update to the article should be approved by me prior to publication.

The above 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 in print and on all platforms of the publication where the article was published;
• be published with a headline including the words “apology” and “Kobus Loots” or “Loots”;
• be published online on the Facebook version of the article with a link to the original article;
• refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
• end with the sentence, “Visit presscouncil.org.zafor the full finding”;
• be published with the logo of the Press Council; and
• be approved by me.

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

Tyrone August

Deputy Press Ombudsman

26 March 2026

[1] This is the main headline on page 1. The headline on page 2, where the article is published, reads: “Webtuiste gesluit na dreigemente van bom, verkragting” (Website closed after threats of bomb, rape)

[2] This is the main headline on page 1. The headline on page 7, where the article is published, reads: “Dis nie ek nie, sê hooffiguur in kuberdrama” (It’s not me, says main character in cyber drama)

[3] Another article on page 3, headlined “Polisie ondersoek dreigemente” (“Police investigate threats”), provides more information about the threats and the police investigation.

[4] The complainant mentions two articles, published on 8 and 15 May 2025, in his complaint. However, all but one of his complaints refer to the second article (see point 2.4).

[5] See 2025-2026_-_3rd_Quarter_WEB.xlsx

[6] See https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/ejc-ajcj-v5-n2-a3