Ombud says no to Zapiro’s “White Genocide” cartoon

The Deputy Ombudsman has directed the Daily Maverick to retract a Zapiro cartoon, publish an apology, and publish a note stating the reason for the retraction. But is the ruling going to far and censoring satire?

Titled “The Boys Who Cried Wolf”, Zapiro’s cartoon, published by the Daily Maverick on 15 February, is made up of three images. The first has small caricatures of AfriForum’s Kallie Kriel and Solidarity’s Dirk Hermann. The second has the duo braaiing while lying in shorts on loungers next to a pool, shouting “Wolf!” while being served cocktails by a black domestic worker. And the third has a wolf, sporting a Trump-like hairstyle, biting a map of South Africa, saying, “You called!”

What appears to have offended Solidarity was the substance of the cry, in particular the words “Took our Land” and “White Genocide”. AfriForum appears to have taken offence only at the use of the phrase “White Genocide”. Acting separately, they lodged complaints with the Press Council. (No complaint was lodged in respect of the phrases “ANC Govt Killed Afrikaans” and “No Jobs for Whites”.)

In a recent ruling, the Deputy Press Ombud upheld the organisations’ complaints based on an alleged breach of clause 1.1 of the Press Code, which (in relevant part) requires the media to -

• “take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”;

• “present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarisation”;

• “present only what may reasonably be true as fact”, with “opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions” clearly being presented as such; and

• “verify the accuracy of doubtful information, if practicable”, and to state if this was not possible.

Because of the response provided by Daily Maverick, which had published the impugned cartoon, the Deputy Ombud also considered clause 7.2, which states:

“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.”

The central issue in this complaint was the use of the phrase “white genocide” in circumstances where both men denied that they (or any other representative of their organisations) had ever used those words. (The “Took our Land” complaint was also an issue.) In the complainants’ favour were two earlier Press Council rulings that had found that AfriForum had not propagated the idea of a white genocide.

Nevertheless, in his ruling in the first of these two matters – a complaint against the Mail & Guardian – the then Press Ombud noted that “AfriForum … believes that white Afrikaner farmers are the victims of targeted killings and that the government’s intention to distribute land to black people points to a systematic attack on the existence of white people in South Africa”.

In its defence, Daily Maverick submitted that “although the complainants deny using the term ‘white genocide’, certain statements and actions by their representatives suggest an implicit endorsement of this narrative that white South Africans are being targeted systematically.” It argued that “by its nature, satire exaggerates and distorts reality in an attempt to provoke thought and discussion.”

But the Deputy Ombud was not convinced, finding that “the words ‘white genocide’ cannot fairly and accurately be attributed to the complainants, and is therefore in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code.”

“In view of this breach”, he continued, “the cartoon forfeits the protection of the ‘safe harbour’ offered to comment by Clause 7.2: it does not take fair account of all the material facts that are true or reasonably true.” (A similar finding was made in respect of Solidarity’s complaint about the land issue.)

What leaves this commentator uneasy is the fact that AfriForum’s official view is that white Afrikaner farmers are deliberately being murdered because of who they are, with the government being accused of both letting this happen and systematically attacking the existence of white people by virtue of its intention to redistribute their land. Why is it impermissible, in a satirical cartoon, to label such a view as a call for white genocide?

In terms of relief, the Deputy Ombud directed Daily Maverick to retract the cartoon, publish an apology, and publish a note stating the reason for the retraction.

In a post on X that was last edited on 4 May 2025, Kriel published carefully curated screengrabs from the text of the ruling, and provided this characterisation of the case:

“Daily Maverick found guilty of publishing lies about AfriForum: The Press Ombud has found the @dailymaverick guilty of publishing unfair, untruthful, and inaccurate information in their attack on @afriforum and @solidariteit. The publication is now required to retract these lies and issue an apology to us.”

Kriel’s post is false and misleading. The Deputy Ombud simply adjudicated whether there was a breach of the Press Code; he made no finding of guilt. (Guilt or innocence is, in any event, something that the law leaves for the criminal courts to decide.) And the “attack”, being a protected comment, would have been unassailable had Zapiro not made use of the phrases “Took our Land” and “White Genocide”, which the Deputy Ombud held could not be attributed to the complainants.

Of greater concern, however, is the undue focus on Daily Maverick, with Zapiro’s name only mentioned in one part of the screengrabs from the ruling. This does not appear to be by accident, as the remainder of Kriel’s post makes it clear that this skirmish is but a small part of the war with “anti-AfriForum activists posing as journalists” and “Leftist media outlets”.

GroundUp publishes the Ombud Watcher column to inform the public about Press Council rulings. The author is a legal practitioner. The editor of GroundUp takes full responsibility for the content of this column.

Support independent journalism
Donate using Payfast