Mazzotti vs News24

Complaint 000774

Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud

 Date of publication:

15 July 2026

Headline of publication:

“Economic freedom for sale: The Malema paradox”

Link:
https://www.news24.com/opinions/columnists/mpumelelo-mkhabela-economic-freedom-for-sale-the-malema-paradox-20260714-0829

Author: Mpumelelo Mkhabela

Particulars of process

1. The complaint is dated 22 August 2026, and was submitted by Nicqui Galaktiou Attorneys on behalf of the complainant, Adriano Mazzotti.
2. A response was filed on behalf of News24 by Dr George Claassen, public editor, on 16 September.
3. The attorneys filed a rejoinder on behalf of the complainant on 5 October 2026.
4. I have taken all submissions into account in considering the matter.

The articles

5. The article is an opinion piece about the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) by Mkhabela, identified in a note at the end as a political analyst. The article discusses the EFF’s focus on the achievement of economic freedom, arguing that the party’s promise is undermined by what the writer argues is the fact that party leader Julius Malema has been, in effect, bought by Mazzotti.
6. The statements about the relationship between the two are at the centre of the complaint. The writer says the establishment of the party was financed by Mazzotti, described as a self-confessed tax dodger and cigarette smuggler, which represented a “calculated investment” in the party.
7. Malema’s behaviour in relation to investigations into political interference in the criminal justice system, “has all the hallmarks of political insurance”. It is “not in doubt” that Malema has done the bidding of Mazzotti, as well as the former deputy head of crime intelligence in the police, Feroz Khan, Mkhabela writes.

The complaint

8. The complaint refers to breaches of Clauses 1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.8, 3.3 and 7.2 of the Press Code.

Protection of commentary

9. Before addressing the specific statements complained about, it makes sense to consider the applicability of Clause 7.2 of the Press Code, which says that

Comment or criticism is protected even if it is extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it is without malice, is on a matter of public interest, has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true, and is presented in a manner that it appears clearly to be comment.

Arguments

10. The complainant argues that the section does not offer a licence to make statements that claim to be factual when they are not. The elements complained about are presented as statements of fact. The first one, that Mazzotti is bankrolling the EFF, is given additional weight by being included in the introductory blurb, indicating that it plays a central role in supporting the argument as a whole.

12. The respondents argue that the article falls within the terms of Clause 7.2 and is therefore protected comment.
13. In his rejoinder, the complainant argues that the statements do not meet the test of 7.2. The article does not take fair account of the material facts by misrepresenting the financial support given, while the editors’ addition of the blurb, including references that had previously been ruled to be false by an Adjudication Panel of the PCSA, showed malice.

Discussion

13. Section 7 of the Press Code (as well as Clause 6, dealing with advocacy), seek to carve out as much room as possible for the expression of views in the media, as long as they meet the conditions set out.
14. In several rulings, the Press Ombud Panel has outlined an approach to the section which treats it as a “safe harbour”: if the piece meets the conditions set out, it earns the protection afforded commentary. If not, other clauses may apply. (See Embassy and Ambassador of Russia vs Daily Maverick 9 October 2023; Appeal: Goss Marlon vs News24 10 June 2021; and others).
15. Any breach is then identified in terms of other sections, not Section 7 directly.
16. At the same time, a piece may as a whole be clearly commentary but contain claims of fact that need to meet the accuracy test. As the Press Council’s Guidance Note “Between Reporting and Comment” says, “A piece of commentary often contains factual claims, and the ‘safe harbour’ principle does not cover inaccurate claims simply because the piece as a whole is commentary.” Basing an argument on claims of fact that do not stand scrutiny falls foul of the requirement to “take fair account of all material facts”.
17. Also, as the Appeals Panel has said, there is no clear line between statements of fact and comments, and an expression lies somewhere on “a fact/opinion continuum”. However, when a complaint is being considered, the line has to be drawn somewhere, the panel found, and it needs to be clear that a statement is comment (Appeal: Patriotic Alliance vs News24, 5 June 2023).
18. I make these comments as background to point out key considerations that have been found to apply in dealing with this complex area.
19. In the present case, there is no question that the article is a piece of commentary, as accepted also by the complainant.
20. At the same time, the protection the article thereby gains is not absolute and it remains relevant to inquire into the particular statements complained about.

Complaint: Inaccuracy – bankrolled

Arguments

21. The complaint is that three statements are made as fact though they cannot be sustained. They are
    • In the blurb for the article: “The EFF … is bankrolled by a cigarette smuggler, led by a man whose lavish lifestyle and compromised loyalties make him the very opposite of the economic liberation he preaches.”
    • Further on: “But no. He was making a calculated investment. Malema and the EFF would do his bidding. Being a benefactor of Malema was a form of buying what I described as ‘political insurance’ in my book, The Enemy Within. When it was time for Mazzotti and his allies to claim political insurance payout, Malema had no difficulty serving as a pawn” and
    • “That he has used the EFF to do the bidding of Mazzotti and his ally, Feroz Khan, the disgraced South African Police Service’s deputy head of Crime Intelligence, is not in doubt”

22. Read together, the complainant says, the statements suggest to the ordinary reader that Mazzotti continues to fund the party and as a result is able to get the party and its leaders to act in his interests, including by interfering in criminal justice investigations.

23. I will first deal with the first statement complained of.

24. The complainant argues that he made just one donation of R200 000 to the EFF in 2014, to enable the party to register for the general elections. Funding is therefore not ongoing, as suggested by the present tense.

25. The complainant also refers to a previous ruling by an adjudication panel of the Press Council, which found in his favour against the respondent. In that case, Adriano Mazzotti vs News24 (16 February 2024), the panel found that it was inaccurate to claim as fact that Mazzotti “donates money to the EFF and some of its leaders”. The publication was directed to correct the article and apologise to Mazzotti.  The matter went on appeal, which confirmed the initial ruling.
26. The article now complained about repeats the claim, this time given more weight by being included in the editorial blurb, the complainant says.
27. Eight days after the article was published, on 23 July, News24 amended it, changing the tense of the verb in the blurb from “is bankrolled” to “was bankrolled”. An editor’s note at the end of the article indicates that the article was amended on that date.
28. In response to the present complaint, News24 draws attention to the change which it says corrects the mistake they were previously sanctioned for.
29. In his rejoinder, the complainant acknowledges that the change in tense resolves the problem in the first statement by removing the implication of ongoing funding. However, the statement remains problematical as the term “bankrolled” identifies Mazzotti as the party’s primary financier.
30. Presenting some dictionary definitions of the word, the complainant says the term goes even further than the statement ruled impermissible in the earlier case, where the panel found fault with the claim identifying him as a “current and major” funder. Both elements of the statement were found to be in breach of the code.
31. The complainant also says that the change was slipped in, and that the note at the end of the article was insufficiently clear or prominent to alert readers to the edit.
32. The complainant also refers to paragraph 10 of the column, where Mkhabela writes that “The EFF’s establishment was financed by Adriano Mazzotti, a self-confessed tax dodger and cigarette smuggler.” That statement, similarly, makes a claim that goes much further than justified by a once-off donation towards registration costs, the complainant says.

Discussion

39. The core of the argument about the first contested statement is the claim that the EFF is (later amended to was) “bankrolled by a cigarette smuggler”.
40. It should be noted that the complainant does not object to being described as a cigarette smuggler. The 2024 ruling on similar matters records that he was specifically asked about the description and told the Ombud’s Panel that he could not run away from his past.
41. In his rejoinder, the complainant has conceded that the change of tense resolves his objection to the implication of ongoing funding, but still objects to the use of the word “bankrolled”, which he says suggests much greater support than a single donation.
42. The complainant cites two dictionary definitions of the verb “to bankroll”: Merriam-Webster says it means “to supply money for (a business, project, or person)”, while the Cambridge dictionary says it means “to support a person or activity financially”.
43. Those definitions comfortably cover a single donation.
44. Though the complainant refers extensively to the earlier Mazzotti ruling, confirmed on appeal, it should be noted that the statements ruled inadmissible in that case were found to be defective in several other respects. In the earlier case,
    • The claim about funding suggested it was ongoing; and
    • that Mazzotti and his firm Carnilinx were Malema’s “biggest known donors”.
    • The panel also ruled that allegations about donations by Carnilinx should not have been made as statements of fact: Mazzotti’s donation was established, not any by his firm.
45. The complainant has argued that the term “bankrolled” equates to the claim that he is Malema’s biggest known donor and is therefore also inadmissible. But following the dictionary definitions his lawyers have provided suggest such a reading is overblown.
46. In the earlier case, the complainant successfully argued that the donation was by Mazzotti as an individual, rather than his company, and to the EFF as a party, leaving the claim that Carnilinx donated to the party and its leaders without foundation. The panel, and later the appeal panel, rejected the argument that companies, parties and associated individuals could be referred to interchangeably.
47. In the present case, the statement is that Mazzotti, as an individual, supported the EFF as a party, which is in alignment with the complainant’s account.
48. Overall, then, the blurb as currently phrased avoids the grounds which led to the 2024 ruling.
49. The statement later on in the column that “the EFF’s establishment was financed” by Mazzotti, on the other hand, goes considerably further. The verb “to finance” is defined as “to provide, lend, or secure the money required to pay for a purchase, project, or activity” (Cambridge), suggesting the provision of all the resources required.  The other difficulty with the statement is that the donation supported the party’s registration – it had by that time already been established.

Finding

44. The statement that Mazzotti “bankrolled” the party is not in breach of the Press Code.
45. The statement that “the EFF’s establishment was financed” by him, on the other hand, breaches Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.

Complaint: Inaccuracy – political insurance

Arguments

46. The complainant argues that the second and third statements complained about, read together, describe the complainant’s support as an investment in what the writer calls political insurance. Mazzotti is painted as being able to get Malema and the EFF to act in his interests, including by interfering in criminal justice investigations.
47. The complaint is that allegations against Mazzotti are made as statements of fact, not opinion, as particularly demonstrated by the phrase “is not in doubt” at the end of the third statement.
48. The fact that these statements were published despite the earlier ruling shows malice or recklessness and should be treated as an aggravating factor.

49. In their response, News24 say that the statements about the relationship between Mazzotti, Malema and the EFF are based on several reported facts they call undisputed. They refer to the 2014 donation; the use by Malema’s family of a property in Hyde Park owned by Mazzotti or an entity he controls; and a R1m loan to Malema in connection with a tax debt.

50. They also cite a book by Jacques Pauw, Our Poisoned Land, which refers to the use of the property, parties, alcohol and quotes an eyewitness as saying he (presumably Malema) gets cash every month from Mazzotti and his company. No further detail on these latter claims is provided.

51. Overall, these points illustrate a relationship that makes Malema a beneficiary of Mazzotti.

52. News24 also argues that the reasonable reader would not regard Malema and his party as separate entities.

53. The further argument that this is a form of “political insurance” is Mkhabela’s view and interpretation, to which he is entitled.

54. As an example of this “insurance” being drawn on, News24 refers to statements at the Madlanga Commission that Mohamed Sayed, described as a top executive in Mazzotti’s cigarette company, succeeded in getting Malema to ask a parliamentary question favourable to the company.

55. The respondents argue that the column is directed primarily at Malema, with the argument that he and his party will be unable to fulfil their promise to voters of achieving economic freedom if they remain beholden to businesspeople like Mazzotti.

56. In their rejoinder, the complainant says the facts listed by the respondents are not in fact undisputed, aside from the 2014 donation. As for the use of the house in Hyde Park, he says the arrangement has since 2018 been explained as an arms-length lease with market-related rental.

57. As for the loan briefly mentioned by the respondents, it was made by someone else, not Mazzotti. The complainant says Pauw in 2018 withdrew the claim that Mazzotti made the loan, acknowledging that it came from Kyle Phillips, a co-director of Carnilinx.

58. Other claims sourced to Pauw’s book are hearsay, and the book is not referenced in the article. Presenting these claims in response to the complaint represents an attempt to find justification after the fact.

59. In any event, the claim that no significant challenge has been made to the book is false. A 2022 report on News24 reported the fact that Malema dismissed the book’s claims.

60. The complainant also refutes the argument that Malema and the EFF are one and the same, referring to an appeal ruling, Robert Gumede vs M&G (2010), which rejected that argument in relation to former President Jacob Zuma and the ANC. A similar argument was rejected in the appeal against the earlier ruling involving Mazzotti and News24.

61. The rejoinder also rejects the argument that Mkhabela was entitled to present his opinion, calling the statements mere speculation and arguing they are presented not as opinion, but as statements of fact.

62. As for reference to the Madlanga Commission, the complainant says this is not mentioned in the article. In any event, the claims involve people other than the complainant and remain untested allegations.

Discussion

63. In essence, the writer’s argument is that Mazzotti has bought the loyalty of Malema and the party he leads and is therefore able to deploy them to act to his benefit. He describes this as a political insurance policy which Mazzotti is able to make use of when needed.
64. The allegation rests on two distinct propositions: that the complainant has provided substantial benefits to Malema and the EFF; and that they have done his bidding as a result.
65. In support of the first claim, the respondent offers several pieces of evidence, as described above (in paragraphs 46 and 47).
66. The 2014 donation to the EFF can certainly be regarded as a benefit to the party.
67. In this context, the extrapolation to Malema as an individual seems to me to be legitimate. Clearly, the two are distinct from each other, as previously ruled, but significant support for the registration of the party he founded can certainly be said to also benefit him personally.
68. As for the occupation of the Hyde Park property, what is uncontested is that Malema’s family lives in a property owned by Mazzotti.
69. However, Mazzotti is on record as saying that the arrangement is a regular rental at a market-related level, which means the arrangement can’t be cited as offering any particular benefit to Malema.
70. News24 dismisses this claim on the basis that no proof of rental payments has been provided.
71. That is a little too easy. No evidence has been provided that occupation is at a preferential rate, either, and so the claim that Malema’s family benefits unduly through occupation of the Hyde Park property remains an unsupported claim.  A landlord does not become a benefactor by simply renting out a property.
72. News24 also points to a R1m loan provided by another director of Carnilinx, Kyle Phillips, to assist Malema settle his tax affairs. The complainant points out that the loan was not made by him, and that Pauw had previously withdrawn his own claim that Mazzotti made the loan.
73. In the absence of an argument linking the loan to the EFF as party, and to Mazzotti, the story of the loan does not assist the respondent or the writer. Carnilinx, which links Phillips to Mazzotti, is not mentioned in the article at all.
74. As for other evidence, the respondent simply provides short-hand notes: “use of apartment in Raphael building, Sandton, parties, expensive alcohol” and a quote from an eyewitness cited in Pauw’s book. No attempt is made to flesh these out or to show how they represent benefits sufficient to buy Malema and the EFF.
75. It is worth pointing out that the arguments for treating Mazzotti as Malema’s benefactor are not spelled out in the article itself. Aside from the blurb’s reference to bankrolling the party, it is simply assumed to be common knowledge. The arguments justifying the description are made in response to the complaint.
76. The second proposition forming the basis of the writer’s argument is that behaviour by Malema and the EFF demonstrate undue support for the complainant. The argument is made in the third statement complained about, which says there is no doubt that Malema has “used the EFF to do the bidding of Mazzotti and his ally, Feroz Khan, the disgraced South African Police Service’s deputy head of Crime Intelligence”.
77. The statement is simply asserted, without evidence.
78. In the respondent’s reply to the complaint, reference is made to statements at the Madlanga Commission, as described above (paragraph 59). But even then, a single claim about a parliamentary question does not support the column’s claim of an overall pattern of behaviour.
79. It is true that a great deal has been written about the relationship between Mazzotti and Malema and about connections between the EFF’s politics and business interests. Many questions have been asked and will continue to be asked.
80. News24 refers to “the well-known relationship” between Mazzotti and Malema, arguing it is legitimate for Mkhabela to advance theories on the nature of the relationship.
81. It is certainly legitimate for a columnist to draw inferences from events in the public domain. Also, a writer does not necessarily have to present every piece of evidence he or she relies on.
82. A writer is required to demonstrate having taken reasonable account of the relevant facts. In practical terms, it means showing some factual basis for the argument, acknowledging where facts are contested, and distinguishing clearly between established facts and the deduction the writer chooses to draw.
83. In this case, the article simply assumes the two key propositions are so well established they do not need to be argued. News24’s response to the complaint assumes the same, providing only limited evidence for them.
84. The two statements are presented as factual claims without offering sufficient basis for making them.

• Finding

85. Though it is clearly a column and therefore an expression of opinion, the article breached Clause 1.3 of the press code by presenting as fact claims about how Mazzotti’s support for Malema and the EFF has given him the ability to influence the party and its leader.

Other elements of the complaint

86. The complainant also cites Clauses 1.8, dealing with the right of reply, and 3.3, dealing with infringements of privacy, dignity and reputation. However, he does not make a detailed argument on these points.
87. The issues arising from the complaint are adequately dealt with under the discussion above.

Ruling

88. I find that the respondents breached Clause 1.3 of the Press Code by stating as fact that Mazzotti used the provision of benefits to Malema and the EFF to ensure they act in his interests.
89. I find that the respondents breached Clause 1.2 by writing that the EFF’s establishment was financed by Mazzotti.
90. I find that the respondents did not breach the Press Code by the reference in the blurb to Mazzotti as having bankrolled the party.
91. Other elements of the complaint are dismissed.

Sanction

92. The respondent is reprimanded for these breaches of the Press Code.

93. The respondent is ordered to amend the statement in the body of the report that the EFF’s establishment was financed by Mazzotti, to reflect the support provided more accurately.

94. The respondent is ordered to amend the second and third impugned statements to make it clear that they represent the writer’s opinion and that the claims they are based on are contested.

95. The respondent is also ordered to insert a line under the heading, reading: This column has been corrected. See editor’s note, below, including an apology to Adriano Mazzotti.

96. The respondent is ordered to extend the existing editor’s note underneath the article to explain the alterations. The note should also

• Include a heading containing both the word “apology” and “Mazzotti”;
• Mention and link to this ruling;
• Include the logo of the Press Council of SA;
• Be added as soon as possible after the period for a possible appeal has lapsed or, in the event of an appeal, after that ruling; and
• Be approved by me.

Appeal

97. The Complaints Procedures lay down 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@presscpouncilsa.org.za

Ruling by
Franz Krüger, Deputy Press Ombud
28 October 2026