Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Antonio Iozzo et al v News24

, ,

Ruling: Acting Deputy Press Ombud

Complaint number: PCSA000786

Headlines:

  • ‘Billionaire’ businessman Antonio lozzo among 3 arrested for alleged R800m trust fraud, published on 25 August 2026
  • Four hours later the headline changed to: ‘Billionaire’ businessman Antonia Iozzo among 3 in court for alleged fraud
  • Fraud charges against businessman Antonio lozzo only provisionally withdrawn, says NPA – according to News24, this headline reads, NPA says fraud charges against Iozzo only provisionally withdrawn, but he denies this. The article was published on September 2.

Authors:

  • The first and the second article, Iavan Pijoos and Noxolo Sibiya
  • The third article, Pijoos

Date lodged: 7 September 2026

Links to stories:

Particulars

  1. This finding is based on correspondence from:

a. the Legal Executive of Alpha, Andrew Boerner, on behalf of Antonio lozzo (the founder and CEO of Alpha), Daniel Werner Roets (Alpha’s CFO and a director), Abraham Johannes van Rensburg (a practising attorney who provides legal services to Alpha from time to time), and Alpha (Pty) Ltd – (henceforth, “Iozzo” or “Boerner”); and

b. News24 journalist Iavan Pijoos, senior investigative journalist Jan Cronje, and George Claassen, Public Editor (henceforth, “News24” or “Claassen”)

The articles

The first one

  1. This article reports that businessman “Antonio Iozzo and two other men have been arrested in connection with an alleged fraud and forgery syndicate involving losses estimated at R800 million”.
  2. The men were reportedly arrested after the Hawks executed warrants of arrest.
  3. Col. Granville Meyer is quoted as saying that they allegedly had forged someone’s signature, which “directly resulted in the victim losing approximately R800 million in financial returns”.

The second one

  1. The first report was amended approximately 4 hours after it had been published. An editor’s note at the bottom of the story explains why: “This article has been amended with new information concerning the interim court order and the response by the accused to News24’s reportage.”
  2. This reportedly came after Iozzo’s lawyers “had obtained an urgent interim order compelling the SAPS to retract their press release … alleging that it contained incorrect information”.
  3. One such amendment was that the warrants for their arrest were not executed “after the men arranged to voluntarily present themselves to the police”.
  4. Other amendments were that:

a. the men denied the allegations made against them (stating that they had opened a case of perjury against the complainants in this matter);

b. “forgery” was not part of the complaint; and

c. nobody was alleged to have suffered financial losses.

The third one

  1. This article said that, according to the NPA, fraud charges against the three men “were only provisionally withdrawn pending further investigations”.
  2. It also reported that the three men had:

a. opened a counter-docket of perjury against Nicola Iozzo and Gregory Hutchinson; and

b. denied it was true that the charges against them were “provisionally” withdrawn.

THE COMPLAINT

The first article

No right of reply

  1. Iozzo complains that News24 did not give him a right of reply prior to publishing gravely prejudicial assertions by the State.
  2. Boerner submits that the press release by SAPS was an out-of-court statement “whose continued publication had already been restrained by the High Court pending adjudication”. He argues that, once News24 became aware of the order, “it was an obvious reason for heightened verification”.

Material omissions

  1. The complaint is that the article omitted some material information, including that:

a. an urgent High Court order had already required SAPS to remove the publication upon which News24 relied;

b. the men maintained that they had presented themselves voluntarily pursuant to prior arrangements through their attorneys;

c. the charge sheet alleged fraud only and did not mention forgery, and that it contained no allegation of an R800 million loss or a fraud or forgery syndicate; and

d. the accused denied wrongdoing and had placed documentary evidence before the authorities.

The headline

  1. Iozzo complains that the headline is “problematic” as it focused on an R800 million figure as if it were part of the charge, though it was not the case.

Significance of court order

  1. Boerner submits that the final High Court order, dated 4 September 2026, materially confirms the seriousness of the concerns that already existed when this article was published – it restrained SAPS from publishing the relevant press release and expressly declared its contents incorrect in the following material respects:

a. Iozzo was not arrested by the Hawks in the manner suggested;

b. the complainants’ sworn statements contained no allegation of an R800 million loss;

c. lozzo was charged with fraud and not forgery; and

d. there was no evidence that the charges related to any “massive fraud and forgery syndicate”.

In conclusion

  1. Boerner concludes that this is significant as it confirms that Iozzo was justified to complain about “genuine and serious inaccuracies”. Accordingly, he argues that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 3.3 and 10.1 of the Press Code.

The second article

Background

  1. Boerner says that, approximately four hours after the first article was published, and only after intervention by Iozzo, News24 amended the report and changed its headline. “The update added the interim High Court order, the voluntary presentation at the police station, the denial of wrongdoing, the counter complaints of perjury, the absence of any forgery charge and the denial of any syndicate.”

Some arguments

  1. Iozzo argues that this demonstrates that the information omitted from the first article was material. “The update did not retrospectively erase the breach that had already occurred… Readers who saw the original version cannot be assumed to have returned later to discover that it had been materially altered.”
  2. He also points out that the editor’s note referred to “new information” concerning the interim order and the accused’s response. He denies that the interim order was new: it had existed for four days before the first article was published. “Nor had prior response been unavailable; it had not been sought.”
  3. Boerner refers to News24‘s attorney, Willem de Klerk, who subsequently stated: “News24 reported on an official, public, press release by the SAPS, received in good faith by News24. There is no requirement for the media to seek prior comment in such instances. News24 updated the article immediately when alerted to subsequent developments. An apology is not warranted and will not be published in this regard.”
  4. He opines that that position is inconsistent with Clause 1.8 of the Press Code and with News24‘s own successful position in its court case against IOL.

No apology forthcoming

  1. Iozzo says News24 refused to apologise for the reportage of the first article, as requested by him. He argues that that critical reportage was likely to lower his reputation. He submits, “A press release is neither sworn evidence nor a judicial finding and does not suspend the duty of fairness.”

Headline

  1. Boerner says the original headline remained discoverable in search results after amendment. “The later update mitigated some harm but did not cure the completed breach or eliminate the need for appropriate correction and apology.”

The third article

Background

  1. Boerner says this article must be assessed against News24‘s knowledge following the first two reports. “By 2 September 2026, News24 had direct access to the complainants, had met them and their representative, possessed extensive primary documentation and had been expressly requested to approach them before any further critical reporting. Prior reply was plainly available”– and yet, this article materially repeated the same failure.

‘Provisional’ withdrawal; right of reply

  1. Boerner says the relevant document did not state that the withdrawal was “provisional”; “provisionally withdrawn”; “pending further investigation”; “pending consolidation”; or that the existing prosecution remained pending.
  2. While withdrawal before a plea does not mean an acquittal and does not make a future prosecution legally impossible, he says the issue is whether News24 could fairly use “only provisionally withdrawn” in its headline without adequately presenting the formal withdrawal document to readers or first putting the new NPA assertion to the complainants.
  3. He submits that the matter before the Ombud is whether News24 should have required “appropriate verification, context and prior response”.
  4. Iozzo says News24 already had his statement and the formal withdrawal authorisation. Yet, this article described the latter merely as “a document bearing the NPA insignia”.
  5. “Only after renewed intervention did News24 insert the complainants’ response, however News24 did not amend its article to factually report on the content of the withdrawal notice in News24’s possession. A later response did not retrospectively satisfy clause 1.8,” Boerner opines.

Anonymous source

  1. Boerner submits that the article did not identify the NPA spokesperson or office, reproduce a formal NPA statement, or provide documentary evidence for the assertion. This brings Clause 11.2 of the Press Code into play.[1] “In any event, the absence of identified authority and corroborating documentation heightened News24’s duties of verification, attribution and contextual presentation under clauses 1.2 and 1.7.”

In conclusion

  1. Boerner submits that this article is in breach of Cause 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 3.3 and 10.1, and Clause 11.2 (to the extent applicable) of the Press Code.

Relief

  1. In general, Iozzo requests this office to uphold the complaint under Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 3.3 and 10.1 of the Press Code, as well as Clause 11.2 (to the extent applicable).
  2. In particular, he asks for:

a. a prominent and unreserved correction and apology on all the platforms where the disputed articles were published, where it will be freely available and not hidden behind a paywall;

b. an appropriate, separate correction and apology concerning the reputational association created with Alpha, having regard to the fact that the criminal matter did not concern Alpha’s business, assets, clients, finances, licence or regulatory standing;

c. the correction to prominently record that the Gauteng High Court, in Antonio lozzo v Minister of Police and Others restrained SAPS from publishing the relevant press release and declared incorrect its assertions concerning the arrest, the alleged R800 million loss, a forgery charge and a “massive fraud and forgery syndicate”;

d. a confirmation whether it was freely accessible or subject to a paywall at publication and thereafter; the date and time of every change in access status; and the period during which each article or version was available free of charge or behind a paywall;

e. a permanent removal of the:

i. original version of the first article and any version that continues to state or convey that the complainants were involved in an R800 million loss, forgery, or a fraud-and-forgery syndicate;

ii. third article that continues to state or convey that the withdrawal of the fraud charges was “only provisional” – or, alternatively, that News24 amend the article so that the inaccurate or misleading allegation is removed and the article fairly records the content of the formal withdrawal authorisation, which is final in nature as per the case law cited; and

iii. correction of search-facing titles, descriptions, metadata, archive references and other material so that neither the original R800 million/forgery/syndicate narrative nor the “only provisionally withdrawn” narrative continues to circulate without the corrective context ordered by the Ombud.

News24’s first reply to the complaint

First article

  1. News24 supplied me with a media statement from Lt. Col. Granville Meyer, saying that Iozzo, Roets and Van Rensburg appeared in Palmridge Magistrate’s Court after their arrest in connection with an alleged fraud and forgery syndicate involving estimated losses of R800 million. It adds, “The suspects allegedly forged the complainant’s signature at a residential and workplace premises in Brackenhurst. These fraudulent documents were then submitted to the Master’s Office in Pretoria to officially remove the victim as a trustee. This unlawful action directly resulted in the victim losing approximately R800 million in financial returns.”
  2. Claassen says that, while Pijoos was at court, News24 received the first letter from Iozzo’s lawyers stating that they had reported inaccurately and that they needed to remove the article. “Our head of news, Nicki Gules, dealt directly with the lawyers and our lawyer, Mr Willem de Klerk, and the article was amended to include the new details from Mr Iozzo’s lawyers, as advised by Mr De Klerk.”

Second article

  1. News24 says that two meetings preceded the publication of this story.[2]
  2. It says that, on August 28, Boerner had called Pijoos nine times before the article was published. “They also spoke throughout the day, and Pijoos sent him quotes and details from the story to confirm whether it was correct. He responded, and where needed, Pijoos corrected.”
  3. Claassen submits, “We believe that this (read: a right of reply) was diligently applied by News24 during the whole communication process with Mr Boerner and meeting with Mr Iozzo and Mr Engelbrecht, despite the clear bullying taking place from the subject(s) of critical reporting.”
  4. He mentions that Iozzo demanded that News24 publish his full response, or nothing at all. News24 refused to do so, as it would have compromised its independence.
  5. Later, Boerner sent a statement from Iozzo and said: “The statement is provided only on the basis the whole statement be used. Please let me know.”
  6. This request/demand was again rejected, for the same reason.
  7. Claassen argues this article did not mention the initial figure contained in the Hawks’ disputed press release, which demonstrates the caution with which the report was framed.
  8. He adds that the Hawks’s statement regarding an alleged monetary loss has since been removed from its social media platforms under the interim High Court order.
  9. The public editor concludes: “We believe News24 practiced due diligence in the way the four articles were compiled and published, all in accordance with the requirements of the Press Code regarding accuracy, the right of reply, and protecting our independence. In constant communication with the complainants’ lawyers, we also amended where necessary, as the Press Code requires.”

Third article

  1. According to Claassen, the NPA said on September 2 that the charges against Iozzo and his co-accused had been provisionally withdrawn.
  2. Pijoos then published a separate story incorporating Iozzo’s denials and his intention to sue the State.
  3. When Boerner challenged the source of the information, Pijoos identified the NPA and forwarded the response by the NPA’s spokesperson to Boerner.
  4. The journalist explained that editors had vetted the article and that further communication should go through News24’s legal representative. “At no point did Pijoos deny them further right of reply. Mr Boerner was the one who said that he did not ‘need formal channels of attorneys’.”

Other articles

  1. News24 mentions two other reports – “Forged signatures, family trusts and counter-claims: Inside Antonio Iozzo’s legal battle”, dated 30 August 2026, and “Businessman Iozzo to sue State for ‘substantial damages’ after fraud charges withdrawn”, published on 1 September 2026.
  2. As Iozzo does not complain about those reports, I see no need for me to document News24’s arguments in this regard.

Iozzo’s response to News24’s (first) reply

Right of reply

  1. Boerner cites several examples of rulings by the Press Ombud’ to the effect that a later update, correction or opportunity to respond does not retrospectively cure a breach of Clause 1.8 of the Code (that requires comment from subjects of critical reporting prior to publication).
  2. Citing the ruling of the Appeals Panel[3], which held that a publication which “storifies” a press statement remains bound by Clause 1.8 of the Press Code, he says, “Reliance on a single official source does not permit a publisher to reproduce grave allegations, framed as fact, uncritically without first seeking the affected person’s response… Its stated position that there is ‘no requirement’ to seek comment where an official SAPS release is received in good faith is incompatible with clause 1.8 and the ruling in News24 and Others v IOL.”
  3. Boerner says News24 admits that it sought copies of the court documents only after publication of the first article. Had it obtained those documents before publication, it would have been aware that there were no allegations of an R800 million loss, no forgery charge and no allegation of a massive fraud-and-forgery syndicate.
  4. He argues that this is an admission by News24 that the first article was published without comment from the complainants. “Had it obtained those documents before publication, it would have been aware that there were no allegations of an R800 million loss, no forgery charge and no allegation of a massive fraud-and-forgery syndicate.”
  5. Boerner says the first report conveyed exceptionally serious allegations, including a R800 million loss, forgery, and a fraud and forgery syndicate. He submits that the harm caused by this reportage “was immediate and substantial”. The first article received at least 78,000 views, while its headline and central allegations remained searchable and capable of continued circulation, he adds.
  6. He opines that there was no urgency that made compliance with Clause 1.8 impracticable. SAPS’s release was dated 21 August 2026, while News24 published on August 25. “News24 had time to seek comment before publication, particularly where the journalist only attempted to obtain the court documents after publication of Article 1.”
  7. Moreover, he says the court restrained SAPS from publishing the relevant release and declared incorrect, among other matters, its assertions concerning the arrest, the alleged R800 million loss, a forgery charge and the description of a “massive fraud and forgery syndicate”.
  8. He concludes: “The Court order is not relied upon as hindsight to create News24’s clause 1.8 duty. That duty existed at publication. The order confirms why it was especially important for News24 not to reproduce the SAPS narrative without approaching those directly affected. The final court order also constitutes material new information requiring News24 to make amends for inaccurate reporting under clause 1.10.”

Withdrawal ‘provisional’

  1. Boerner says News24’s own response confirms that it published the allegation that the NPA withdrew fraud charges against Iozzo and two others “provisional … pending further investigations” before they were afforded an opportunity to address it. “That is a further, independent breach of clause 1.8.”
  2. He argues that News24’s contention that the article contained “large parts” of an earlier statement by Iozzo misses the point. “An earlier statement concerning the withdrawal of charges could not be treated as a response to the distinct later allegation that the withdrawal was supposedly provisional. That allegation had to be put to the complainants before publication.”
  3. He says the formal withdrawal authorization did not state that the withdrawal was provisional, pending further investigation, or pending a possible consolidation. “News24 nevertheless withheld the relevant content of the withdrawal notice from readers, merely referring to having been in possession of a ‘document bearing the NPA insignia’.”
  4. He submits that News24 thereby deprived its readers of the very information necessary to test the alleged NPA assertion, as it did not publish that the:

a. criminal charges were formally withdrawn in terms of a signed withdrawal authorisation notice from the office of the National Prosecuting Authority dated 1 September 2026;

b. written notice of withdrawal records “CHARGES WITHDRAWN: FRAUD”; and

c. Senior Public Prosecutor communicated an unqualified withdrawal as reflected in the notice.

63. Boerner argues that News24’s description of the official written withdrawal notice merely as “a document bearing the NPA insignia” conveyed the insinuation that the document’s authenticity or official status was doubtful, casting “unwarranted doubt on both the validity of the document and the credibility of the complainants who furnished it”.

64. He concludes, “News24 therefore failed to provide a right of reply before publication; failed to take care to report the allegation of a provisional withdrawal truthfully, accurately and fairly; and failed to present the news in context and in a balanced manner. It omitted the signed withdrawal notice and its material content.”

News24’s supplementary reply to the complaint

The text

  1. News24 argues that it was entitled to rely on an official Hawks statement when reporting Iozzo’s arrest and the allegations against him, provided these were accurately attributed and presented as allegations rather than established facts. Citing previous Press Council rulings involving official investigations and reports, Claassen says the Press Code does not require a right of reply in every instance of critical reporting based on authoritative official sources.
  2. He adds that questions were put directly to the Hawks regarding Iozzo’s arrest, and they responded with an official statement. At that stage, Iozzo had already appeared in court (as confirmed by the Hawks).
  3. Claassen also denies that News24 obtained court documents only after publication, stating that it requested them from the NPA on 24 August but collected them from court the following morning because they had not yet been supplied. It maintains that the later correction or clarification of police information does not retrospectively make its original reliance on the Hawks unreasonable.
  4. “There is an important distinction between publishing information irresponsibly and reasonably relying on official information that is later corrected or clarified,” he submits.
  5. The public editor says, “Where the SAPS or the Hawks provide information through an authorised spokesperson about an arrest, charge or investigation, journalists are entitled to treat that as an authoritative source of what the police says occurred. Reliance on identified official sources is a routine and necessary part of all reporting, including crime reporting.”
  6. Claassen submits the proper question, therefore, is whether News24 reported the Hawks’ information responsibly and truthfully: was it accurately attributed, clearly presented as an allegation rather than established fact, and reported without embellishment? “News24 submits that it was.”
  7. He argues the fact that aspects of the information supplied by the Hawks were later corrected or clarified did not make News24’s original reliance on that official source unreasonable. “Clause 1.8 does not mean that official police statements require the accused’s response before publication. This is, however, what the complainants are asking for…”
  8. Claassen argues that Ombud’s rulings relied upon by Iozzo do not relate to contemporaneous reporting on police statements of an arrest.
  9. By contrast, Claassen mentions the following Ombuds findings:

a. Anton Kruger v The Village News and Hermanus Times – the Ombud declined to adjudicate a complaint that the complainant should have been approached before publication because the newspapers were reporting on the contents and outcome of an official municipal investigation. The Ombud expressly held that this reasoning also applied to the claimed right of reply. An application for leave to appeal was dismissed; and

b. National Arts Council v The Citizen, the Ombud held that no pre-publication comment was necessary in respect of material taken directly or indirectly from an official Public Protector report, provided the reportage of that official document was accurate and fair.

74. In other words, Claassen concludes, the Press Council “has expressly recognised cases of critical reporting that do not necessarily require a right of reply”.

75. He emphasises that, once the official position changed following High Court proceedings, News24 updated and corrected its reporting. “That is consistent with responsible journalism and section 1.10 of the Press Code.”

76. Regarding the disputed R800 million figure and J50 warrants, News24 says Meyer reaffirmed both claims on 25 August, although he had not yet supplied copies of the warrants. News24 maintains that it nevertheless updated the article to include information provided by Iozzo’s attorneys, with its senior editorial and legal representatives personally involved. It argues that these updates demonstrate compliance with the Press Code’s requirements for corrections and accuracy under Clause 1.10 of the Press Code.

Iozzo’s response to News24’s second reply

Clause 1.8

  1. Boerner says this supplementary response from News24 does not answer the pleaded breaches. “Instead, it advances a general proposition that a SAPS, Hawks or NPA source creates an exception from clause 1.8. There is no such exception in the Press Code or in the authorities on which News24 relies.”
  2. He submits that News24’s claim that it merely reported information from an official SAPS or Hawks source is inconsistent with how the first article was prepared. News24 conducted its own research and added information about Iozzo’s personal and business affairs, including Alpha, other companies, his published work and wider commercial interests. This information was not in the SAPS’s release – and it shows that News24 went beyond simply reporting official information and that it could reasonably have approached the complainants for comment before publication.
  3. “Given the seriousness of the allegations, the publication was foreseeably capable of causing grave harm to the complainants’ personal and professional reputations.”
  4. The issue, he continues, is not when News24 first requested documents – it is why it published before obtaining them, when it believed they were a necessity, and without seeking a response from the complainants. “Had it obtained the available material first, it would have demonstrated the inaccuracy of the Hawks’ statement.”
  5. Boerner says post-publication statements by Meyer did not verify the claims in the first article or cure the original deficiencies. They also conflicted with the charge sheet, court documents and final High Court order. Quotation marks did not absolve News24 of responsibility for republishing defamatory claims as fact, particularly while SAPS was interdicted from doing so. “In context, the limited use of ‘alleged’ did not qualify those assertions or alert readers that they were untested, disputed, and inconsistent with the charge sheet.”
  6. He adds that News24 introduced Alpha, the fourth complainant, into the first article even though Alpha did not form part of the SAPS release. “The criminal matter did not concern Alpha’s business or regulatory standing. News24 nevertheless created a reputational association between Alpha and the allegations without seeking or publishing Alpha’s response.”
  7. Boerner contends that News24 did not update the first two articles fairly to record the final order – the correction applied only to the interim order. The second article was not updated to reflect the final order.
  8. The online link to the second (updated) article continues to carry the original R800 million fraud headline, thereby perpetuating the incorrect narrative through searchable digital channels.[4]

Some precedents

  1. Boerner cites several adjudications by the Ombud in support of Iozzo’s case:

a. The Appeals Panel in News24 and Others v IOL rejected the proposition that a publisher may avoid clause 1.8 by merely “storifying” a press statement;

b. Tim Maake v Letaba Herald: the Ombud declined to condone a blanket proposition that a newspaper need not contact the subject of critical reporting because the report is based on a press release;

c. Umkhonto Professional Services and Two Others v The Citizen likewise found a clause 1.8 breach despite official, named sources and a public-safety press release referring to a SAPS investigation;

d. Aristeidis Danikas v Daily Maverick is dispositive of the institutional-source contention. There, the publication relied on a confidential NPA panel report and a sworn statement by a former Hawks head. The Ombud rejected the claim that the NPA material was quasi-judicial and exempt from the right of reply, found a clause 1.8 breach, and ordered both an apology and a right of reply. The decision was confirmed on appeal;

e. Minister Bheki Cele v Landbouweekblad expressly relied on Danikas and held that prior comment was required even where the allegation had been supported by a sworn statement of a former Hawks head;

f. In Bojane Segooa v Maroela Media, the Ombud likewise treated the critical question as whether the subject of the impugned allegation was afforded a pre-publication opportunity to respond, not whether the allegation had been attributed to an identified source;

g. Similarly, in Baepi v City Press, which concerned a Hawks investigation, no clause 1.8 breach was found because the journalist had sent material questions to the affected person before publication. The identified Hawks source was not itself the reason for the finding;

h. Anton Kruger v The Village News and Hermanus Times concerned accurate reporting of the outcome of a completed municipal investigation, not a police press release containing untested allegations;

i. National Arts Council v The Citizen drew a limited distinction for accurate and fair reporting of an official Public Protector report. Those decisions concerned the accurate and fair reporting of the outcome of an established official process, not the republication of untested accusations from a police release. They did not recognise a general exemption from clause 1.8 whenever information is sourced from the police or prosecution authorities. Properly read, the National Arts Council ruling itself held that allegations involving approaches to the Hawks and NPA required a pre-publication opportunity to comment. “A later amendment or subsequently published response does not cure the original breach”;

j. Matshepo More v Daily Maverick held that a subsequent reply does not mitigate or excuse a failure to comply with Clause 1.8; and

k. The Appeals Panel in Paramount Group and Ivor Ichikowitz v Vrye Weekblad likewise confirmed that a later right of reply cannot retrospectively extinguish the breach. These authorities answer News24’s reliance on the same-day update to Article 1 and its later inclusion of a response in Article 3 (the updated version).

The third article

  1. Boerner says News24’s supplementary response confirms, rather than answers, the complaint about this article as it failed to seek a response from the complainants before publishing a new claim that their charges were only “provisionally” withdrawn – while no official document substantiated that claim.
  2. By hiding this official information, News24 prevented readers from accurately evaluating an anonymous NPA statement used in their report.

ANALYSIS

The first article

  1. The crux of the matter is whether this article has breached the Press Code. To determine that, I need to consider the following issues:

Right of reply

  1. The central question is whether News24 was required under Clause 1.8 of the Press Code to approach Iozzo for comment prior to publishing those serious and potentially damaging allegations. In other words: Did reliance on an official SAPS or Hawks statement exempt News24 from that obligation?
  2. In this regard, both parties have inundated me with former findings of the Press Ombud to support their argument.
  3. Let me cut to the chase, though: In general, the media must approach subjects of critical reportage, mentioned in press releases, for comment. That is not debatable.
  4. However, that does not pertain to court cases. Whenever a court case is ongoing, the media are only obliged to report on official reports and court proceedings. In such circumstances, it is not for the media to report on affected persons’ views – that is for the court to explore (and then for the media to report).
  5. In this case, Iozzo already appeared in court. This exempts the media from giving him a right of reply prior to publication.
  6. I also consider that News24 did ask the Hawks regarding his arrest.
  7. Boerner’s argument that the release by the Hawks had been an out-of-court statement is true, but that does not change the fact that the court case was already ongoing. That fact, and that fact alone, exempted News24 from giving Iozzo a right of reply.
  8. Finally, I agree with De Klerk who wrote on August 26: “News24 reported on an official, public, press release by the SAPS, received in good faith by News24. There is no requirement for the media to seek prior comment in such instance.”

Accuracy, verification

  1. The salient issues are whether:

a. News24 took sufficient steps to verify the Hawks’ claims before publishing them;

b. it was reasonable to publish before obtaining and examining the charge sheet and relevant court documents, which News24 had requested from the NPA; and

c. News24 had adequate grounds to report an alleged R800 million loss, a forgery charge and a “massive fraud and forgery syndicate”.

98. This is so important that I write the following in bold and in italics: It will create an untenable precedent if this office expects the media to verify official press statements before publishing the contents of such documents.

99. At the time of publication, News24 had not received a copy of the charge sheet. Yes, it would have been better if it waited before publishing – but, on the other hand, I cannot blame it for proceeding to publish without the charge sheet as it was in possession of an official press release by the Hawks. Given that fact, I do believe that it was reasonable for News24 to have published the first article without having received a copy of the charge sheet.

100. If the information in the press release was wrong (and it certainly was), it was not News24’s fault.

Material omissions, context

  1. I need to consider whether the article:

a. omitted material information, including the interim High Court order restraining publication of the SAPS statement, Iozzo’s account that he had presented himself voluntarily, and his denials; and

b. fairly reflected the contents of the charge sheet (which Iozzo says contained no allegation of an R800 million loss, no forgery charge and no allegation of a criminal syndicate).

102. Boerner argued, “These omissions went directly to the nature, scale and character of the alleged criminal conduct. They were not peripheral.”

103. News24 did not respond to this part of the complaint, not in its original response and neither in its supplementary response.

Omission: Interim High Court order

  1. The court issued an interim order, dated 21 August 2026 (i.e. four days prior to the publication of the first article), stating: “Pending the outcome of this application the respondents (read: members of the police) are directed to remove forthwith the Facebook, website and Social Media post from its website and all its Social Media platforms…”
  2. The article indeed did not reflect that the court had ordered the Police to remove its press release from all its platforms.
  3. That means that News24 relied on a non-existent press release. While I do not blame it for reporting on the content of that release, I also do believe that the journalist should have mentioned the fact that the court had ordered the police to remove it from all platforms. That would have given balance to the article.

Omission: Iozzo’s account

  1. As I have argued above, the court case was underway. Reporting on that case, as it unfolds, will give Iozzo the opportunity to present his case – which is when News24 will report his side of the story.

Charge sheet

  1. The charge sheet at my disposal is undated, unsigned and devoid of any detail, save for the use of the word “fraud”. It indeed does not mention an allegation of an R800 million loss, a forgery charge and an allegation of a criminal syndicate.
  2. However, in the police’s press release, those matters were mentioned. See De Klerk’s quote as documented under Paragraph 96.

The headline

  1. The question is whether the headline improperly associated Iozzo with an R800 million loss as though that amount formed part of the criminal charge. In other words, did it exaggerate or present unverified allegations as established facts?
  2. I am satisfied that the headline fairly reflected the content of the article, as required under Clause 10.1 of the Press Code. The “content” that I am referring to, is the information in the police’s press release – which News24 was justified to “storify”.

The mentioning of Alpha (Pty) Ltd

  1. On my plate is the question whether there was a sufficient factual basis to associate Alpha with the criminal allegations.
  2. The article mentions that Iozzo is “the founder and CEO of Alpha”. While he does not dispute that fact, he is concerned that the article created an unjustified reputational association between Alpha and the alleged criminal conduct.
  3. I do not read such a (criminal) association into the article, and neither do I believe that reasonable readers would do so either. Moreover, the article also mentions that other institutions with which he is associated – Body Action Gym, The 11th Floor and Cocktail Bar, and Über Property Developments.
  4. In any event, in his correspondence at my disposal he refers to himself as the CEO of Alpha.

The second article

  1. Boerner argues that this report demonstrated that the information omitted from the first article had been material and that “the update did not retrospectively erase the breach that had already occurred… Readers who saw the original version cannot be assumed to have returned later to discover that it had been materially altered.”
  2. I have already ruled that the first article was not in breach of the Press Code, with one exception only.
  3. I also accept that the information was “new” to News24 – I have no reason to find that this reference was false.
  4. Boerner’s complaint that News24 refused to apologise for the reportage of the first article does not hold water. I do not believe that the only breach of the Press Code warrants an apology – as can be seen in my sanction below.
  5. One question remains: Did the amendment cure the original misinformation? Referring to what I have documented under Paragraphs 7 and 8, I do believe the answer to this question is “yes”.

The third article

  1. The gist of the complaint is that News24 misleadingly reported that the criminal charges had been “only provisionally withdrawn”, without first seeking Iozzo’s response or adequately disclosing that the formal withdrawal authorisation in its possession contained no such qualification.

‘Provisionally’ withdrawn

  1. The question is whether there was documentary evidence to justify reporting that the criminal charges had been “provisionally” withdrawn.
  2. While the court documents did not use the word “provisional”, the NPA wrote in a WhatsApp message, dated September 2: “The NPA confirms that the withdrawal of the matter is provisional, pending further investigations.”
  3. That constitutes documentary evidence.
  4. It is important to note that the article attributed the statement that the charges were provisionally withdrawn to the NPA – if the journalist presented this as a fact, it would have been a different kettle of fish.
  5. Claassen is correct on this issue – the fact that aspects of the information supplied by the Hawks were later corrected or clarified did not make News24’s original reliance on that official source unreasonable.
  6. Moreover, Iozzo was also quoted in the article, quite extensively, as saying that the withdrawal was not provisional.

Verification

  1. The same argument as documented under Paragraph 98 applies here.

Anonymous source

  1. The mere fact that the article did not identify the NPA spokesperson or office cannot constitute a breach of the Press Code. I am also satisfied that News24 did sufficiently try to verify the relevant information.

FINDING

  1. The first article was unbalanced in that it did not report that the court had instructed the Hawks to remove its press release on all its platforms. This is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code that says, “The media shall present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by … material omissions…”
  2. The rest of the complaint is dismissed.

SANCTION

  1. News24 is reprimanded for failing to report that the court ordered the Hawks to remove its press release on all the platforms where it was published and is directed to amend the first and the second articles accordingly.
  2. 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 articles were published;

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

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

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

f. 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

19 October 2026

[1] Clause 11.2 of the Code reads, “The media shall avoid the use of anonymous sources unless there is no other way to deal with a story and shall take care to corroborate such information.”

[2] These meeting were quite comprehensive, as Claasen has documented. I do not see the need to be specific about it, save for saying that Pijoos says he again felt bullied. Please note that this office cannot adjudicate on matters of “feeling bullied”. For that reason, I am not referring to such accusations and counter-accusations.

[3] In the matter of News24 et al v IOL, 14 November 2024.

[4] https://www.news24.com/southafrica/crime-and-courts/billionaire-businessmanantonio-iozzo-among-3-arrested-for-alleged-r800m-trust-fraud-20260825-0358. Please note that, by the time I googled this address, that page was not available anymore.

 

Related Posts