Press ombud dismisses Wildlife Ranching South Africa’s complaint against Daily Maverick

The South African press ombud has delivered a decisive ruling in favour of Daily Maverick, dismissing a complaint against the publication by Wildlife Ranching South Africa (WRSA) and its leadership.

The complaint centred on an analysis piece by veteran journalist Don Pinnock, which explored a perceived campaign to unseat the minister of forestry, fisheries and the environment, Dion George. The article suggested George was being taken down to be replaced by Willie Aucamp, a politician described as being deeply embedded in the wildlife ranching and hunting sector.

Read more

Sacking of Dion George: how a progressive minister is being taken down by the wildlife breeders

November 9, 2025

WRSA’s CEO, Richard York, board chairperson Colin Engelbrecht, and former chairperson Gerhard Heyneke filed the complaint. Represented by legal firm KWV Inc, the complainants argued that the Daily Maverick had painted them as architects of a “deceitful plot” and a “self-serving coalition” that had corrupted policy for private enrichment.

The industry body claimed the article’s use of the term “capture” was a grave allegation intended to mirror the systemic corruption of the Zuma-era State Capture. They further argued that their relationship with Aucamp was merely professional and official, not a clandestine alliance.

Defending Daily Maverick

Defending the publication, Daily Maverick Deputy Editor Anso Thom provided a trail of evidence to show that WRSA had launched a sustained attack on George’s integrity. Thom pointed to WRSA’s aggressive public messaging, including press releases that accused George of “hiding” and “failing” the sector. She argued that describing these public actions as a “campaign” was a fair characterisation of a documented pattern of litigation and media pressure.

Regarding the “capture” allegation, Thom clarified that the term referred to regulatory or policy capture. This is a recognised concept in which an industry lobby exerts undue influence over the very body intended to regulate it.

The ruling

In his 12-page ruling, the acting press ombud, Johan Retief, dismissed the complaint in its entirety. He emphasised that the article was clearly marked as “Analysis”, a category that allows for “interpretive, argumentative and value-laden” content.

“The first issue is the nature of the text. Clearly, it is not a news story; it is a comment analysis, as it rightly declares. There can be no debate about it. That is important, as it determines which sections of the Press Code are relevant to this adjudication,” said Retief.

He continued that Section 1.8, which requires journalists to give a subject of critical reporting a right of reply, was not applicable in this case. “Columnists are not required to ask for comment — and they never will be (not in a situation where the press is free, that is). This section is about comment that should be obtained from subjects of critical reportage in news stories,” said Retief.

Retief found that while the comments might be “extreme” or “unbalanced”, they were protected under Section 7.2 of the Press Code because they were based on facts that were “reasonably true”. At the core of the matter, Retief stated, “I have little doubt that WRSA indeed has played a part in the quest to remove George from his post. I would even have found it strange if WRSA did not campaign to get rid of George.”

The ombud noted that Daily Maverick was not alone in its reading of the political landscape. He referenced similar analyses by Dr Ross Harvey in Business Day and the EMS Foundation, both of which suggested that vested interests were triumphing over George’s reformist agenda.

Ultimately, the ruling affirms that when an industry lobby takes a public, litigious and aggressive stance against a sitting minister, it cannot claim defamation when the media labels that activity exactly what it appears to be: an influence campaign.

WRSA’s response

After the press ombud’s ruling, Daily Maverick asked WRSA for comment. CEO Richard York said:

“The press ombud committed a fundamental logical fallacy in his reasoning. He conflated the WRSA’s public, lawful disagreement with a minister’s policies and preference for him to be replaced, with factual proof of the Daily Maverick's defamatory publication alleging their part in the alleged (and still unproven) action of orchestrating a clandestine campaign to capture a state department. Exercising one’s democratic right to criticise a minister via press releases and open litigation does not render it ’reasonably true’ that one is engaged in the ‘mechanism of capture’.

“The ombud was presented with concrete evidence exposing the publication’s claims of a deep, strategic alliance and a ‘capture’ of the department as factually baseless. Astonishingly, the press ombud explicitly accepted WRSA’s factual timeline, yet still ruled in favour of Daily Maverick. In the South African sociopolitical context, capturing a government department is State Capture. The artificial distinction made by the press ombud regarding ‘capture’ of a ‘department’, ‘department policy’ and ‘state capture‘ in his ruling is irrational and does not remove in any way the defamatory sting of the articles.

“The WRSA is still considering whether an appeal before the appeals committee of the Press Council is the most appropriate response, especially in light of your planned republication of the sting behind the original publications.” DM