Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Professional Protection Alternatives (Pty) Ltd v News24

, ,

Ruling: Acting Deputy Press Ombud

Complaint number: 32280

Author: Velani Ludidi

Headline: Business forum storms shopping centre in Cape Town, demands contracts for locals

Publication Date: 19 June 2025

Date lodged: 17 July 2025

Link to story: https://www.news24.com/southafrica/crime-and-courts/business-forum-storms-shopping-centre-in-cape-town-demands-contracts-for-locals-20250619-0803

 

Particulars

  1. This finding is based on correspondence by:

a. Christiaan Petrus Diedericks, the sole and executive manager of the firm Professional Protection Alternatives (PPA), who complained on behalf of PPA;

b. Leon van der Merwe, from the firm Liddell, Weeber & Van der Merwe; and

c. George Claassen, Public Editor of News24.

2. Due to a mistake by the office of the Press Council, this complaint has landed on my desk on 5 October 2026 – more than a year after the complaint had been lodged. Our office has apologised to PPA for this delay.

3. PPA also lodged another complaint about an article headlined, “Mark Lifman murder: Alleged hitmen provided security to high-profile business owners – sources”. This story is dated 5 November 2024, and the complaint was lodged 8 months later. The then Public Advocate (PA) refused to accept the complaint, saying: “I am afraid condoning a lateness of more than 8 months would be completely unprecedented. I can unfortunately not accept ignorance of the article until July 2025 as a good and satisfactory explanation for the delay. I am thus declining to condone the lateness of the complaint regarding the 5 November 2024 article.”

4. Clause 1.3 of our Complaints Procedures reads, “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 further states that our office can, on reasonable grounds, accept late complaints if “there is a good and satisfactory explanation for the delay”.

5. The PA was correct in his decision, for the reasons that he had given.

The article

  1. The article is about a temporary shutdown of Site C Plaza in Khayelitsha, Cape Town, by Site C Business Forum. People reportedly “stormed” the centre, demanding that tenants like Shoprite allocate jobs and service contracts to community-based small businesses.
  2. Ludidi writes that, when News24 arrived at the scene, the group had already dispersed. He adds: “Still, heavily armed private security personnel, including members from Professional Protection Alternatives – a company recently in the news for alleged links to the underworld – were present, alongside police officers.” (my emphasis)

Correspondence prior to the lodging of the complaint

  1. PPA initially complained to News24 directly, saying that the statement that PPA was “recently in the news for alleged links to the underworld” was false and misleading, and asking for an apology or a retraction.
  2. Refusing to do so, Claassen replied that:

a. two suspects in the Mark Lifman murder, Johannes Jacobs and Gert Bezuidenhout, had been arrested shortly after the murder. He says that the Western Cape provincial police commissioner, Lt-Gen Thembisile Patekile, publicly confirmed that one of them worked for PPA. He presented PPA with a TikTok video clip to substantiate this information;

b. the latter acknowledged that the company had contracted both suspects on multiple occasions;

c. PPA confirmed that it had launched an internal investigation into the suspects’ potential link to the murder;

d. even though Lifman had no formal connection with PPA, he had claimed that the company was his “brainchild” – a claim that PPA denied;

e. Alwyn Landman, a PPA executive, had a working relationship with Lifman prior to the formation of that company;

f. police confiscated firearms from PPA’s premises and sent them for ballistic testing; and

g. shortly before Lifman’s murder, Bezuidenhout successfully applied through PPA for three firearms permits.

10. The Public Editor concluded as follows: “Given the facts outlined above, News24 believes that the wording is both accurate and defensible. The use of the word ‘alleged’ reflects the legal and journalistic standard, and it is a fair assumption given the circumstances. The fact that PPA contracted two murder-accused in the past, and that they stand accused of killing an underworld-figure, supports the use of that phrase.”

The complaint

  1. Following News24’s response, PPA approached this office.
  2. The nub of its complaint is that the:

a. statement in dispute is false, sensationalist, unlawfully defamatory, out of context, unfair, unverified and distorted, as the reporter deliberately excluded material facts;

b. fact that suspects in the killing of an “underworld person” had previously received services from PPA did not justify suggesting that the firm itself was linked to the underworld. This also ignored the suspects’ constitutional right to be presumed innocent until found guilty and could unnecessarily damage PPA’s reputation;

c. jurnalist did not give it a right of reply; and

d. reportage could have caused unnecessary harm to PPA’s reputation.

13. In its correspondence to this office, PPA refutes Claassen’s defence on several issues, including the claim that:

a. Landman had a working relationship with Lifman prior to the formation of that company;

b. firearms were not accounted for; and

c. the video clip referenced by News24 contains an allegation or an indication that PPA was linked to the underworld.

Relief sought

  1. PPA asks this office to direct News24 to:

a. retract or delete the statement in question;

b. prominently publish an apology; and

c. undertake to never remove that text.

Analysis

  1. The central question is whether there is any evidence that PPA, as a firm, was recently in the news for allegedly having links to the underworld.
  2. I need to consider two aspects in this regard:

The first context: The Lifman murder case

  1. From correspondence at my disposal, the context to the statement in dispute seems to be that one of the suspects in the Lifman murder was contracted by PPA (even though that is not mentioned in the article).
  2. My Google search revealed that several media outlets, such as Daily Maverick, The Citizen, the George Herald, Die Burger, Netwerk24, the Cape Argus and others, along with News24, did report allegations that individuals connected to the underworld were suspected of the murder and that they worked for or provided services to PPA. However, I could not find a single reference to an allegation that PPA as an institution was linked to the underworld.
  3. If there is any evidence that PPA, as a firm, was alleged to have links with the underworld (regarding the context of Lifman’s murder), it was not presented to me. Neither of the two internet references News24 provided me with contained any such evidence.
  4. I went out of my way to find such examples, but my search was to no avail.
  5. I also consider that:

a. Daily Maverick reported in April 2025 that the firearms seized from PPA had been cleared and had not been linked to any crimes, according to the PPA; and

b. PPA reportedly said that it would terminate Bezuidenhout’s contract if he is found guilty.

22. If this was the only context, the statement in question would have been false – it implicates the whole firm, while only two of its employees were involved. That would be tantamount to blame, say, a bank, for corruption if one or two of its employees were suspected of such a crime. That cannot be fair.

23. In that case, Ludidi should merely have reported that two of PPA’s contractors were allegedly involved in the underworld. Then, there would have been no problem, and probably no complaint either.

24. The question that News24 did not, or could not, answer, is: Who made such an allegation against PPA as a firm? Again, this is regarding the context of the Lifman murder.

The second context: Court case of PPA v Van der Spuy

  1. Earlier, the PPA was accused of having been involved in gangsterism/illicit cigarette activities. This resulted in a court case in the Western Cape High Court, which returned a judgment on 7 April 2024.
  2. This time, it was about the PPA as a firm. One of the issues in this case was the question of whether PPA had been involved inter alia with firearm investigations into security service providers linked to the underworld, firearm dealers illegally supplying firearms and ammunition to gangs and other high profile firearm investigations.
  3. The court expressly found that the impression created by a police officer’s affidavit that PPA was involved in gangsterism or linked to illicit cigarette smuggling was not borne out by the facts and that the inference was without factual basis.

Conclusion

  1. The article does not specifically refer to either of the contexts, as documented above. I therefore need to consider both contexts.
  2. In the second context, it is true that PPA, as a firm, allegedly had links to the underworld. Because that is true, I need to give News24 the benefit of the doubt regarding the complaint about accuracy.
  3. However, and this is a big “however”: It is unfair to have stated that there were allegations that PPA had links to the underworld, without also stating that the court did not find any evidence to support that allegation.
  4. This reminds me of a finding of mine in the case of Neil Diakond v Sunday Times, made on 7 April 2013. I concluded that, “while the disputed sentences are true (he had partly transgressed council policy, as the newspaper correctly argues), they do not reflect the whole picture (as he had been greatly exonerated). This is a classic example of text that is correct, but context that is lacking.”
  5. This case is similar to that one.
  6. Because it is true that PPA as a firm was involved in that court case, News24 had no reason to give it a right of reply.

Postscript

  1. On the use of the word “allegedly”. This is an important word in the world of journalism. Mostly, it safeguards journalists – but that is not always the case. The mere use of that word does not guarantee that the text is in line with the Press Code. That should be clear from my argumentation above.

Finding

  1. The statement that PPA was recently in the news for alleged links to the underworld, without adding the material information that the court did not find any evidence that the firm had links to the underworld, is unfair, out of context and misleading. This is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
  2. As this has the potential to cause the firm huge, unnecessary harm, it is also in breach of Clause 3.3 of the Code.
  3. The complaint that the statement in dispute was false is dismissed.
  4. The complaint about no right of reply is dismissed.

Sanction

  1. News24 is directed to apologise to PPA for:

a. unfairly stating that it, as a firm, was recently in the news for alleged links to the underworld, without also reporting that the only time that the firm was accused of having had ties to the underworld, the court did not find any such evidence; and

b. having potentially caused it unnecessary harm to its reputation.

40. The above should:

a. 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;

b. be published in print and on all platforms of the publication where the article was published;

c. be published, with appropriate prominence, with the apology in the introductory sentence and with a headline including the words “apology” and “Professional Protection Alternatives”;

d. refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;

e. end with the sentence, “Visit org.za for the full finding”;

f. be published with the logo of the Press Council; and

g. 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

Johan Retief

Acting Deputy Press Ombud

8 October 2026

 

 

 

Related Posts