MEDIA24’S REFUSAL TO ENGAGE: REJECTION OF ATTEMPTS TO REACH OUT & CORRECT FALSEHOODS
Introduction
This document outlines the extensive efforts I undertook to engage with News24 and Media24 in order to correct a series of false, defamatory narratives that had been propagated about me through their publications. These narratives, which originated from a campaign orchestrated by Wouter de Swardt (WdS) and his associates, relied heavily on fabricated evidence, false allegations, and biased reporting.
Despite the withdrawal of all charges against me—a fact that was unequivocally clear at the time—I faced deliberate refusals from News24 to engage with or even review the substantial evidence I presented. This evidence not only disproved their published claims but also exposed a systemic pattern of bias, negligence, and manipulation in their reporting practices.
My communications with News24 included a detailed four-page letter and a comprehensive 25-page index, listing hundreds of critical documents and supporting evidence. These materials demonstrated the gravity of their violations and the harm caused by their actions, not just to my reputation and livelihood but to the integrity of public trust in responsible journalism.
This refusal to correct the record and the contradictions in Media24’s reporting practices reveal a troubling double standard: they were willing to sensationalize baseless accusations when they aligned with a harmful narrative but avoided accountability when presented with verifiable facts. This document will outline the key points of my engagement, the violations in reporting, and the broader implications for journalistic integrity.
Media24’s False and Fabricated Articles vs the Facts and the Truth
MEDIA24
FALSE:
"It is estimated that the British national made up to R34 million while committing this fraud, according to News24.”
TRUE:
The R34 million claim is as absurd as it is damaging. It implies that a single individual defrauded thousands of guests without anyone noticing, without any negative reviews, and without a single platform flagging the account. It implies that banks, police, the NPA, and financial crime units all failed to investigate a multi-million rand scam—because it never happened.
The truth is this figure was cooked up by WdS, repeated verbatim by Media24, and given the illusion of credibility by constant repetition. There is no evidence, no victim testimony, and no official endorsement of this figure. It is a fabricated anchor for a false narrative—and a serious journalistic failure.
Communications With Media24
After the final charge against me was withdrawn, I wrote to News24, copying all senior and editorial staff.
My email included a detailed four-page letter outlining the background, context, false content of the articles, the relationship between Wouter de Swardt (WdS) and his clients, the use of the articles, the damage caused, and the gravity of their violations.
I specifically drew the following to their attention:
False Claims In Articles:
Nearly all statements from WdS and Consortium members were fabricated and presented as fact.
Biased Sourcing:
News24 exclusively used Consortium members (e.g., WdS, Inge Broad) as supposed independent voices.
Coordinated Campaign:
The Consortium involved SAPS, NPA, and media to harm my reputation and misrepresent me as a criminal.
Fabricated Evidence:
Consortium members manufactured affidavits and charges to construct a false narrative of “fraud” and ensure my detention.
Manipulation By News24:
News24 played a role in manipulating the media by publishing unverified Consortium claims as “facts.”
Harm To My Business:
The Consortium misled Booking.com and other platforms, falsely portraying me as a scammer and disrupting guest experiences.
Creation Of Fake Victims:
Guests were deliberately misled to align with the Consortium’s narrative, creating fabricated victims.
Perjury By SAPS Officers:
Certain SAPS officers committed perjury and fabricated legal documents, including a bogus immigration charge, despite my valid visa.
Promotion Of A False Narrative:
The scam narrative was amplified through articles, petitions, and social media to frame me baselessly.
Malicious Prosecutions:
These were repeatedly withdrawn, proving the charges were intended solely to keep me incarcerated.
Promotion Of A False Narrative:
The scam narrative was amplified through articles, petitions, and social media to frame me baselessly.
Malicious Prosecutions:
These were repeatedly withdrawn, proving the charges were intended solely to keep me incarcerated.
News24’s Lack Of Integrity:
I questioned their ethics, suggesting prior relationships with the Consortium may have compromised their reporting.
Strategic Delays In Bail Hearings:
The investigating officer used fabricated charges to delay bail, prolonging my incarceration.
Illegal Private Detentions:
Consortium-led detentions bypassed legitimate SAPS investigations to illegally arrest and detain me.
Abuse Of Bail Proceedings:
The Consortium continually interfered, using fabricated charges to ensure bail was denied.
Undisclosed Personal Motives:
Consortium members’ personal motives influenced the charges, as evidenced by inconsistent legal documents and affidavits.
Index Attached To The Email
I also attached an index to the email, running to twenty-five pages, including links or references to significant documents and their relevance. Below is the list of folders and files sent to News24 in September 2023:
Contents And Index List Of Documents And Evidence:
486 items detailing the key points of evidence.
Summary Of The Period From 2020 To 2023:
Comprehensive overview of events during this period.
Timeline Master Document:
An Excel draft providing a detailed chronology of events.
Wouter De Swardt:
A selection of material demonstrating the man, his methods, and motives.
Analysis Of Submissions By WdS, His Clients, And SAPS Officers:
Critical examination of their claims and involvement.
Systemic Corruption In SAPS:
Complaint filed on 18 April 2023, addressing widespread misconduct.
Conduct Of SAPS Officers (WdS And Others):
Examples and information on unlawful behavior (draft).
The Crimes Of WdS, His Clients, And SAPS:
Detailed account of the offenses committed.
Case No. 7902.22 Application To Hear Oral Evidence And Affidavit:
Formal submission by Darren Russell.
Immigration Issue:
Information provided for Abrahams and Gross.
Analysis Of False Affidavit By Serg Stevens:
Exposing inaccuracies in submitted legal documents.
Formal Complaint Against Psira Member WdS:
Involving direct participation in police corruption and violence.
IPID Complaint:
Reporting systemic corruption in SAPS, filed 18 April 2023.
Alan Wendi, Premier Of The Western State:
Correspondence and context.
British Embassy, Foreign & Commonwealth Office:
Relevant communications.
Media24 Articles:
Archive of defamatory and biased reporting.
Fisherman’s Bend:
Before-and-after folders, showcasing evidence side by side.
Inventory Of Possessions Held By Mr. Moonsamy:
Assets valued at R4,200,000, still illegally withheld.
Leirmans Road Evidence:
Before-and-after photos and supporting material.
The Stolen Portfolio:
Contents and index of documents and evidence related to the case.
Inventory Photos:
Comparison of items before and after being moved to safe storage.
Evidence Folders And Photos:
May 18 Master file detailing critical evidence.
Table Listing Crimes By WdS, SAPS, And The Consortium:
Overview of various illegal activities.
Communications With Louis Herbert And Consortium Plans:
Includes ESS and obligations like deposits.
Losses And Damage Inflicted By WdS, SAPS, And Consortium:
Comprehensive data on harm caused.
Letter To Abrahams:
Covering numerous matters in 51 pages (confidential).
Follow-Up Letter To Psira (31 August):
Additional clarifications.
Follow-Up Letter To IPID:Addresses the complaint filed on 18 April 2023 and followed up on 21 August 2023.
Analysis Of Serg Stevens’s False Affidavit And Home Affairs Statement:
Highlighting contradictions and falsehoods.
Transcripts:
Includes a July 2023 conversion (14 December 2022) and an October 2022 phone conversation.
Leirmans Road Statements:
Inge Broad's comments about damages with supporting photos.
Affidavit Of Mr. Anton Moller:
Manager and owner of Rawsons Camps Bay.
Transcripts Of 21 Videos:
Covering the confession of Mario Boffa.
Anton Moller And Gail Broad WhatsApp Chats:
Relevant communications with key individuals.
WhatsApp Exports:
Includes chats with Johannes Loubser and the La Collection Gail Broad Group.
Victims Created By WdS And SAPS:
Guests turned into fabricated victims by their actions.
Crimes Of The Consortium:
Detailed accounts of offenses committed by individuals and as a group.
Judgment In August Hearing:
Key legal determinations.
Affidavits And Perjury:
Evidence of false testimonies.
Consortium Emails:
Correspondence revealing their coordinated efforts.
Booking.com Communication:
Details of manipulated narratives affecting platform reviews.
Guest Communications:
Examples of misleading narratives presented to guests.
Fisherman’s Inventory:
Documentation of 1,750 items from the property.
Reports From Platforms:
Records of profile takedowns, including number, dates, and callers.
British Embassy Communications:
Contextual documents related to the case.
Deposit Returns Table And Communications:
Evidence of financial harm caused.
Psira Contents Update:
Additional documents related to their involvement.
Evidence Folder Contents:
Compilation of critical evidence in the case.
Malicious Prosecutions:
Details of cases involving Disberry and Broad.
WdS And Broad Perjury:
Evidence of deliberate falsehoods in their statements.
Attacks And Damage Table:
Overview of physical and reputational harm caused.
Conspiracy By Mario Boffa, Johan Schalkwyk, Denis Dalton, Andre du Rand:
Details of plans involving torture, murder, embezzlement, fraud, and forgery.
Refusal To Engage And Misrepresentation Of Reporting Rules
When I reached out to Media24 to correct the false narrative being propagated by their publications, the response I received from George Claassen was not only dismissive but entirely inaccurate. His email, dated 13 September 2023, stated that News24 could not engage with me because I was facing “various serious criminal charges,” citing this as the reason they could not get involved.
The problem with this response is twofold: it was factually incorrect, and it revealed a fundamental misunderstanding—or misrepresentation—of the rules surrounding media coverage of criminal cases.
At the time of Claassen’s reply, all charges against me had been withdrawn. The fraud charges were thrown out by the prosecution on 13 March 2023, and the immigration charge was withdrawn by the Senior Public Prosecutor two months after we submitted our representations in June 2023. There were no active criminal proceedings, no pending charges, and no grounds for refusing to engage based on my alleged status as a criminal suspect.
In other words, Claassen’s assertion that I was still facing “serious criminal charges” was demonstrably false.
Even more troubling is the fact that Media24 had already been extensively involved in covering my case while I was accused of these very crimes. When the News24 articles were published in December, January, and February, I was indeed facing criminal charges. By Claassen’s logic, News24 should not have reported on the case at all during that period, as I was an accused person in ongoing legal proceedings.
Yet, they published article after article, repeating unverified allegations without hesitation. How can News24 claim that it cannot engage with me to correct the record when they had no issue reporting on the case while the charges were still active?
This contradiction exposes a blatant double standard in their approach. When it suited their narrative, News24 had no problem publishing sensational and damaging articles about me. But when I sought to correct those falsehoods, they suddenly claimed that journalistic ethics prevented them from doing so.
REPLY FROM MEDIA24
From: George Claassen <George.Claassen@media24.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 8:21 AM
To: Darren de Rodez <darrenrussell10@outlook.com>; Adriaan Basson <adriaan@24.com>; Sheldon Morais <sheldon.morais@24.com>; Helena Wasserman <helena@24.com>; Mpho Raborife <Mpho.Raborife@24.com>
Subject: Re: Letter in regards to recent articles
Dear Mr Russell
Thank you for your email. As you are an accused of various serious criminal charges, as set out by News24's report (link) News24 will and cannot get involved in the case against you before the court. When you appear in court, News24 can report on the case.
Kind regards
George
George Claassen
Public Editor/Ombud News24, & Media24 Community Press Lesersredakteur
REPLY FROM MEDIA24
The Actual Rules On Reporting Criminal Cases
Contrary to what Claassen implied, there is no blanket prohibition on reporting criminal cases, even while they are ongoing. In fact, South African law allows the media to report on criminal proceedings, provided they follow certain guidelines to ensure accuracy and fairness.
Accuracy and Fairness:
Journalists must report the facts accurately and ensure they present both sides of a story. This is a fundamental principle of responsible journalism.
Avoiding Prejudice:
While reporting on an ongoing case, journalists should avoid prejudicing the outcome of the trial or creating public bias against the accused. They must ensure their reporting does not unfairly tilt the scales of justice by portraying the accused as guilty before the trial has even begun.
Open Court Principle:
In South Africa, criminal trials are generally open to the public, and journalists are permitted to report on proceedings. They are free to observe, take notes, and publish stories about what happens in court, as long as they respect the above guidelines.
The key takeaway here is that there is no legal or ethical rule preventing a journalist from reporting on a criminal case. The responsibility lies in how the reporting is conducted—ensuring accuracy, avoiding defamation, and maintaining balance.
Claassen’s claim that News24 “cannot get involved in the case” because I was an accused person is therefore not supported by any journalistic code or law. It was an excuse, plain and simple.
Media24’s False and Fabricated Articles vs the Facts and the Truth
MEDIA24
FALSE:
INGE BROAD: "Inge (surname withheld) told News24 it was heartbreaking and frustrating to see what was done to her and her husband’s luxury property on the Atlantic seaboard."
TRUE:
What’s “heartbreaking” is watching the person who orchestrated your arrest give a media interview inside the very house they stole from you. What’s “heartbreaking” is returning to Pollsmoor for a second time because of their lies—then watching as they use your stolen designs to sell the home for millions more. What’s “heartbreaking” is building something extraordinary, only to have it looted by criminals masquerading as victims, cheered on by journalists who never once asked a question. That’s not heartbreak. That’s betrayal.
Contradictions In Media24's Own Reporting Practices
Moreover, Claassen’s statement was inconsistent with Media24’s own previous actions. They had no issue engaging with my case when it involved publishing allegations from the likes of Keith Broad, Inge Broad, and Wouter de Swardt.
They published articles based on one-sided information, sourced entirely from individuals with a vested interest in my downfall, without even bothering to fact-check or seek a balanced perspective. Yet, when I—having been exonerated in court—approached them to correct the record, they claimed they could not engage.
This hypocrisy raises serious questions about Media24’s motivations. If they were truly concerned about journalistic integrity and ethics, they would have been just as cautious in publishing the original articles as they claimed to be when I reached out to them.
The fact that they were not only willing but eager to publish defamatory articles while I was still facing charges, only to hide behind ethics when I tried to provide my side of the story, shows a clear bias and lack of objectivity.
Media24’s False and Fabricated Articles vs the Facts and the Truth
MEDIA24
FALSE:
“A British citizen who was arrested for fraud on 4 August this year and released shortly after on bail of R30 000 was arrested again on Wednesday on similar charges.”
TRUE:
I was not arrested for fraud on 4 August — that charge never existed. The arrest stemmed from fabricated theft and damage claims made by Inge Broad, not fraud, and the charge was later thrown out by the magistrate. This crucial fact is omitted in every article, despite the outcome being a matter of public record. The journalist had four months to verify the charges before publication. Instead, Media24 repeated the same falsehood across three platforms and four journalists, parroting a narrative manufactured by WdS and the landlords — not the facts presented in court.
Journalistic Integrity And Public Accountability
By refusing to engage with me or correct the false narratives they had helped propagate, Media24 is not only breaching journalistic standards but also failing in their duty to the public.
Journalism is meant to serve the public by providing accurate, balanced information and holding power to account. Instead, Media24 seems to be using its platform to shield the very individuals who orchestrated a campaign of false allegations and criminality against me.
It’s important to note that their refusal to engage and correct the record not only harms me but also undermines the credibility of Media24 as a whole. If they cannot be trusted to report the truth, even when presented with evidence to the contrary, how can the public rely on them for accurate information on any issue?
This context is especially relevant to Vernon Pillay, who may have been genuinely deceived by the same false narratives. But unlike Media24, Vernon has the opportunity to right that wrong by exposing the truth and reclaiming his journalistic integrity.
Media24’s Deliberate Malpractice
The comprehensive nature of my initial communication, outlining serious violations, left no room for doubt.
The only reasonable conclusion is that the articles and their relationship with WdS were motivated by more than mere deception or journalistic negligence; there was a deliberate intent to further WdS’s malicious agenda while disregarding the fundamental journalistic standards of fairness, accuracy, and balance.
This pattern of refusal, combined with a persistent failure to exercise even basic journalistic due diligence, indicates that Media24's alignment with WdS’s false narrative was a calculated strategy rather than a mere oversight or error.
This blatant disregard for truth underscores the publication's role in perpetuating a harmful and defamatory narrative.
Media24’s False and Fabricated Articles vs the Facts and the Truth
MEDIA24
FALSE:
“When owner Keith Broad asked private investigator WdS of Fox Forensics to get rid of the tenants, the tide began to turn against Russell.”
TRUE:
This quote admits to a criminal conspiracy—yet Media24 presented it as if it were lawful or even admirable. No lawful landlord hires a private investigator to “get rid of” tenants. The legal route is clear: apply for an eviction order. Keith Broad never did—because he had no grounds. Instead, he sent WdS and eight thugs to violently seize the property, eject the occupants, and change the locks. No court order. No sheriff. No legal basis. This was an unlawful eviction carried out by brute force. And yet Media24 published it without question—as though such conduct was routine or justified.
The “tide” didn’t turn because of facts or justice—it turned because WdS weaponised the police and the press. After being hired by Broad, he orchestrated arrests, planted narratives in Media24, and ensured I was painted as the villain. Meanwhile, the true story—of a tenant who paid over a million Rand and spent months transforming the property—was buried. This wasn’t a tide; it was a hit job, backed by a complicit journalist, rogue SAPS officers, and a publication that never sought comment or checked court records.
Conclusion
The evidence presented in this document demonstrates a consistent and calculated effort by Media24 and its associates to propagate false and defamatory narratives about me, all while refusing to engage with the overwhelming evidence disproving their claims.
Media24’s failure to correct its reporting goes beyond simple negligence—it represents a deliberate disregard for the ethical principles of journalism, including accuracy, fairness, and accountability. Their actions not only harmed me personally and professionally but also undermined public trust in the media's ability to report objectively and responsibly.
This pattern of behavior cannot be dismissed as mere oversight. Media24’s reporting demonstrated a clear bias, aligning with the malicious agenda of Wouter de Swardt and his associates while actively ignoring their journalistic responsibility to seek and report the truth. Their refusal to engage with or acknowledge the documented facts highlights a troubling misuse of their platform and a blatant failure of public accountability.
This context is particularly significant in light of their ongoing refusal to engage despite being presented with undeniable evidence, such as the withdrawal of all charges against me and the fabricated nature of the allegations. These actions reflect a calculated strategy to shield themselves from scrutiny while continuing to perpetuate harmful falsehoods.
At its core, this is not just about the impact on me—it is about the fundamental role of journalism in upholding truth and integrity. Media24 has failed in its duty to the public, and it is imperative that these issues be addressed. The opportunity remains for those within Media24, including Vernon Pillay, to rectify these wrongs by exposing the truth and restoring credibility to their reporting. Until then, the harm caused by their actions will remain a stark reminder of the consequences of unchecked bias and negligence in the media.
Media24’s False and Fabricated Articles vs the Facts and the Truth
MEDIA24
FALSE:
"In due course, they became aware of the short-term letting scheme."
TRUE:
This is pure fiction. The short-term letting model was never hidden—it was the entire basis of the lease. It was proposed, agreed to, and documented from day one. Their own agent, Anton Moller, confirmed it. So did Keith’s cousin, Gail Broad, who facilitated the deal.
Emails, WhatsApps, lease clauses, and payment records prove it was discussed at length and formed the only viable way for me to recoup the millions I invested transforming the property.
They didn’t "become aware" of anything—they signed off on it. The only thing they became aware of was the post-renovation value of the villa. That’s when the lies started.
This claim is a brazen rewrite of the timeline designed to mask a calculated property grab. And once again, Media24 didn’t ask for my comment, didn’t ask the agent, didn’t check a single fact—they simply printed the lie.
The Compounded Failure of Oversight: Press Council's Inaction
Media24’s failure to engage, investigate, or correct the defamatory articles is inexcusable, but what amplifies the severity of this issue is the inaction of the Press Council, the body charged with ensuring accountability and adherence to ethical journalism in South Africa. Despite being presented with one of the most serious complaints they will ever receive—comprising extensive documentation, evidence, and detailed accounts of Media24’s systematic breaches—the Press Council failed to act decisively.
The communications table reveals an outrageous failure by the Press Council to investigate or take meaningful action. Instead of addressing the complaint’s merits, their response was characterized by delays, requests for repetitive resubmissions, and evasive tactics. This obfuscation not only compounded the harm caused by Media24’s actions but also highlighted the systemic inadequacies of the very oversight mechanism meant to protect against such abuses.
The Escalation of Harm Through Inaction
Failure to Investigate: Despite receiving comprehensive submissions, including detailed analyses of the articles in question and clear evidence of Press Code violations, the Press Council repeatedly deferred action. The refusal to even acknowledge the gravity of the allegations undermines their role as an impartial arbiter.
Unjustified Delays: The timeline of communications shows repeated instances where responses were delayed or outright ignored, despite delivery confirmations. This deliberate stalling reflects an unwillingness to address the substance of the complaint, raising questions about the integrity of the process.
Excuses Over Accountability: Requests for "reduced versions" of the complaint or questions already answered in previous submissions served only to deflect from their responsibility to investigate. These tactics eroded trust in the Press Council’s ability—or willingness—to enforce ethical standards.
Compounded Harm to the Complainant: Every instance of inaction allowed the false narratives propagated by Media24 to remain uncorrected in the public domain, perpetuating the reputational damage. This failure to intervene directly facilitated the continuation of harm caused by Media24’s reporting.
A Breach of Public Trust: By neglecting their duty to act decisively, the Press Council not only failed me as an individual but also failed the broader public by allowing a major media entity to avoid accountability for systemic violations of ethical journalism.
The refusal of Media24 to engage or take corrective action on their reporting demonstrates a deliberate choice to perpetuate false narratives over the truth. This failure was exponentially compounded by the Press Council’s inaction, reflecting a systemic breakdown in the mechanisms meant to ensure accountability in South African journalism.
When oversight bodies fail to uphold their mandates, they become complicit in the very violations they are tasked with addressing. The Press Council’s failure to investigate and hold Media24 accountable not only deepens the harm caused to me personally but also sets a dangerous precedent where powerful media entities can evade responsibility with impunity.
This dual failure—first by Media24 and then by the Press Council—strikes at the core of ethical journalism and oversight. It demands a comprehensive review and accountability, not just for the harm caused but to restore public faith in the institutions meant to protect the integrity of journalism in South Africa.
Media24’s False and Fabricated Articles vs the Facts and the Truth
MEDIA24
FALSE:
“We tried blocking his adverts each time we saw any, but he kept creating new ones,” said Inge
TRUE:
This is a direct admission of deliberate financial sabotage. The lease explicitly allowed short-term letting—it was the only way I could recover the millions I invested upgrading their run-down villa. They praised the renovations, then tried to destroy the income stream that funded them. When I kept advertising—as contractually allowed—they accused me of wrongdoing.
Then they blocked the very listings I relied on to fund both the rent and repay the massive outlay, and later claimed arrears. While simultaneously sabotaging every source of revenue, they still expected me to pay them the full rent without a cent omitted.
With every payment of nearly R300,000 approaching, they would harass, threaten, and demand—while at the same time destroying the means by which those payments were generated.
This was not confusion. This was calculated sabotage dressed up as concern. Media24 printed their confession verbatim—without once asking how sabotaging lawful income aligned with their claims of non-payment.
The Press Council's Unprofessional Conduct and Compounding of Harm
The Press Council’s handling of my complaint has been profoundly unprofessional, demonstrating a lack of urgency, accountability, and fairness. Instead of acting as an impartial oversight body, they have exacerbated the harm caused by Media24’s false and defamatory reporting through unnecessary delays, dismissive responses, and an outright failure to investigate the core issues presented. The consequences of their inaction are grave, with each delay compounding the impact of the false narratives on my life and reputation.
A Failure to Acknowledge the Gravity of the Complaint
Although my initial complaint, submitted in August, was admittedly long, its length reflected the scope, volume, and seriousness of the violations of the Press Code. It was not a product of verbosity or over-elaboration but rather a necessity, given the over 100 fabricated, false, and misleading statements within the Media24 articles. Not knowing how much evidence would be required to substantiate my position, I erred on the side of caution to ensure every violation was properly documented.
The complaint portion itself, however, was concise—just a handful of pages. Separating this from the supporting evidence would have taken the Press Council minimal effort. Yet, instead of replying with a request for clarification or reduction, they chose to ignore it entirely.
Delays and Dismissive Responses
Ignored Initial Complaint:
The Press Council only responded in October, two months after the initial submission, and only after I followed up.
Uninformed Rejection:
When they finally replied, it was clear they had not read the complaint at all. Their reference to the articles being "simple reporting of court cases" demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the issues, as the complaint itself directly addressed these claims and highlighted their inaccuracies. Furthermore, the questions raised in their October response had already been answered in the original August submission.
Knee-Jerk Rejection:
Rather than engage with the material, their immediate reaction was to reject the complaint on the basis of its length and request a significantly shorter version. This response ignored the seriousness of the allegations and the substantial harm caused by the Media24 articles.
Burden of Recompiling:
Without any guidance, help, or advice from the Press Council, I spent over a month working on a revised and much shorter report, adhering to their vague instructions. The amended complaint, submitted on 6 November, was carefully structured, with each component clearly categorized to allow the reader to focus on relevant sections. Despite this effort, it received the same dismissive treatment as the first submission.
A Pattern of Silence and Delay
The Press Council’s lack of responsiveness continued after the submission of the amended complaint:
-
No Reply to Amended Complaint: Despite submitting the revised version on 6 November, I received no response.
-
Ignored Follow-Ups: When I chased the matter on 28 November, again, no reply was forthcoming.
The Press Council’s complete disregard for communication reflects a deeply unprofessional approach, particularly given the gravity of the complaint.
Compounding the Impact of Media24’s Defamatory Reporting
Had the Press Council begun investigating upon receipt of the first complaint in August, the matter could have been resolved by now. Instead, their delays have allowed the false narratives to remain uncorrected in the public domain, causing immense and ongoing harm to my reputation, livelihood, and well-being.
This harm is not static—it worsens with every day that the matter is ignored. The defamatory articles have had unimaginable consequences, not only perpetuating a false public perception but also affecting my ability to rebuild my life and professional reputation.
Failure to Uphold Oversight Duties
This case is undoubtedly one of the most significant and shocking series of defamatory articles to come before the Press Council in years. Despite this, their handling of the matter has been marked by:
-
A failure to acknowledge the complaint’s gravity.
-
A lack of urgency in addressing the complaint.
-
Unprofessional communication and unexplained delays.
-
A disregard for the compounded impact of their inaction.
-
Grave and Potentially Fatal Consequences
The Press Council’s refusal to act has not only allowed the harm caused by Media24 to persist but has also compounded it. Their inaction has delayed the resolution of a matter that continues to have grave, and potentially fatal, consequences for my life and well-being. By failing to fulfill their responsibilities, they have become complicit in the ongoing harm caused by Media24’s reporting.
Media24’s False and Fabricated Articles vs the Facts and the Truth
MEDIA24
FALSE:
"He was first arrested in about mid-2022 and released on bail. He has now been arrested on more fraud charges as more victims have come to the fore.”
TRUE:
The phrase “more victims have come to the fore” is entirely untrue. The charges that led to my arrest stemmed from three complaints dating back to December 2021—dockets that had already been investigated, found to contain no criminal element, and closed. No new victims ever emerged. The publication recycles the same fiction repeatedly, despite the courts dismissing the very claims they continue to print as fact.
“Truth is not only violated by falsehood; it may be equally outraged by silence.”
- Henri Frederic Amiel