Menu
Ruling (Leave to Appeal)

Netwerk24/Die Burger vs Parliament

, ,

BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA

In the matter between:

Netwerk24/Die Burger                                                                                                                                                             Applicant

and

Parliament                                                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                                                                     Case Number: 000619/05/2026

DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

  1. Netwerk24/Die Burger (applicant) seeks leave to appeal the Ruling of the Acting Press Ombud dated 25 May 2026 which was in respect of a complaint that had been lodged by Parliament (respondent). The complaint followed an article published by the applicant on 7 May 2026 with the headline “Skatryk sekretaris dalk blyplek kwyt ná eis dat parlement huur betaal.” The headline in essence says that “a very rich secretary (to Parliament) may lose his place of residence after demanding that Parliament pays rent”. In line with the heading, the article conveyed that the Secretary to Parliament (Mr Xolile George) was in arrears with rentals where he stayed, although he was on a very high salary of about R5m. The article was correctly summarized by the Acting Press Ombud: The Secretary’s salary was more than R5m yet his rental where he stayed was reportedly R244,646.00 in arears; he had insisted that Parliament paid for his luxurious flat and, as that did not happen, he was in danger of being evicted. The article also said Mr Mothapo, Parliament’s Spokesperson, belatedly said the account had been paid but had refused to provide confirmation. It said that according to the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI), which was the landlord, the rent was still outstanding by May 4. The journalist had directed questions to Mr Mothapo, who had furnished some written responses.
  2. The respondent (through Mr Mothapo) filed a complaint against the article saying that it violated several articles of the Press Code. A number of the complaints were dismissed, with two upheld and a sanction imposed, hence this application. I will restrict myself only to the complaints upheld as they are the only one’s relevant to this application. Before doing so, I should state the gist of Parliament’s complaint: The secretary’s account was not in arrears; he had voluntarily settled the outstanding balance,  a fact that had been confirmed by the DPWI, which information was furnished to the journalist; therefore, Mr George was not in danger of being evicted; also, his basic salary was not more than R5m. The respondent says notwithstanding this information, the article gave the impression that the account was in arears and that Mr George faced eviction; that the article contained only minimal information stripped of its context and substance and that Parliament’s response was materially disregarded and not fairly reflected. It was also said that the article was sensationalistic, aiming to create outrage through the phrases it used.
  3. The Acting Ombud analyzed all the arguments and came to the findings he did; that is, dismissing some complaints while upholding others. He found that the applicant:
    • through the selective use of Parliament’s response, acted in breach of several clauses of the Code;
    • failed to verify the DPWI’s response to Parliament, thereby acting in breach of article 1.7 of the Code.

A sanction was then imposed.

  1. The application for leave to appeal must show reasonable prospects of success on appeal in order to be granted. This is what I must assess.
  2. As I said, the Acting Ombud thoroughly analyzed all the arguments and dealt with them in full. I don’t find any fault justifying the review of his findings. In truth, some of the complaints dismissed could easily have been upheld.
  3. In its application for leave to appeal, the applicant goes into details which are not germane to its application; in particular, there are no new points raised that have not been properly considered by the Acting Ombud. The application contains voluminous submissions which do not speak to the real points or findings made by the Acting Ombud. In an ordinary litigation, the applicant would have been mulcted in costs for digging in and persisting with issues that are not material to the application. For example, it is not clear what the precise answer is to the fact that the article did not reflect the information furnished to it that Mr George’s account was not in arrears and that the information was actually confirmed by DPWI. Surprisingly, the applicant insists that “the reporting under review was accurate.” On the contrary, I agree with the respondent’s replication that the Acting Ombud’s Ruling “correctly identified and determined the central Press Code violations that formed the heart of the complaint, namely the selective reporting of Parliament’s response, the omission of essential information provided before publication, the failure to fairly reflect Parliament’s version, and the failure to properly deal with updated information received before publication.” The aforegoing demonstrates the point I made earlier that the applicant fails to grasp some of the germane points on which the Ruling of the Acting Ombud is based.
  4. It is my finding that the application has no reasonable prospects of success; it is therefore dismissed.

Dated this 1st day of July 2026.

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel.

Related Posts