Akkerland: Navigating Truth Amid Rising Disinformation

In a significant win for fact-based journalism, Judge Bernard Ngoepe of the Press Council’s appeals committee has ruled in favor of News24 in a dispute concerning reporting on the Akkerland farm case, affirming that the publication’s coverage was accurate and truthful.

The ruling overturns an earlier finding by Press Ombudsman Herman Scholtz, who had sided with the Suider-Afrikaanse Agri Inisiatief (SAAI) in their complaint against News24. The dispute centered on an article by journalist Andrew Thompson titled “No, Akkerland Boerdery wasn’t expropriated without compensation – owners sold it privately for R80m.”

At the heart of the controversy was whether the Limpopo farm had been seized by the government without compensation, as claimed by various conservative groups and international media outlets, or whether it had been sold through legal channels for a substantial sum, as reported by News24.

The Akkerland case had become a flashpoint in South Africa’s contentious land reform debate, with some organizations using it to portray the South African government as hostile to white farmers and engaged in Zimbabwe-style land seizures. This narrative gained particular traction in international circles, including the United States, where it reinforced certain political viewpoints about post-apartheid South Africa.

SAAI, described as a conservative agricultural organization with close ties to AfriForum, had argued that News24’s reporting was misleading and inaccurate. They maintained that Akkerland was indeed expropriated, contrary to what Thompson had reported.

During the appeal hearing, advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, SC, representing News24, explained that the publication’s intent was to “debunk the myth peddled abroad” that Akkerland was an example of land seizure or expropriation without compensation. He emphasized that the farm had been sold for R80 million, making claims of uncompensated expropriation patently false.

“These organisations who say otherwise want to sensationalise the matter, because they want to force a comparison between South Africa and communist states, or countries like Venezuela and Zimbabwe,” Ngcukaitobi argued before Judge Ngoepe.

He further clarified that expropriation is a legal process distinct from land “seizure,” which is not permitted under South African law. Ngcukaitobi also criticized Scholtz’s original ruling for effectively endorsing apartheid-era legislation, specifically the Expropriation Act of 1975, stressing that “this is a matter of law, not politics.”

Judge Ngoepe’s ruling was decisive, finding that News24’s reporting was accurate, its headline appropriate, and that the previous ruling by Scholtz was incorrect. This judgment effectively confirms that Akkerland was not expropriated without compensation and cannot be cited as an example of government land seizures.

The case highlights the ongoing “information war” in South Africa, where misinformation can quickly spread and become accepted as fact, particularly on politically charged issues such as land reform. Organizations like SAAI and AfriForum have been accused of deliberately misrepresenting such cases to international audiences, especially in the United States, to portray South Africa as a failing state where white farmers are under constant threat.

This ruling comes at a time when rural crime, violence, and land reform continue to be contentious topics in South Africa, with various political actors using these issues to advance their agendas. News24’s investigation into Akkerland sought to provide factual clarity amid this heated discourse.

The verdict represents not just a victory for News24 but for fact-based journalism more broadly in an era where misinformation travels rapidly across social media and international news platforms. It underscores the importance of rigorous reporting and fact-checking, especially on issues that are exploited to stoke racial tensions and international misconceptions about South Africa.

For journalists like Thompson and publications like News24, the ruling affirms their responsibility to seek and report the truth, even when it contradicts popular narratives or faces opposition from influential political actors.