‘The South African’ apologises to Johannesburg pastor Leon du Preez
· The South African
The South African apologises to Johannesburg pastor Leon du Preez for publishing an article containing incorrect and misleading information that has caused him reputational damage.
Visit sport-tr.bet for more information.
The South African was found to have breached the Press Council of South Africa’s Press Code in a ruling found here.
APOLOGY
The article, published in April, is titled – Jozi pastor ‘predicted’ Elon Musk’s sanctions, SA ‘missile attacks’ – and inaccurately reported that Du Preez, of the Encounter Church, prophesied that a missile would hit South Africa in the coming months.
Du Preez had shared in a Facebook post: “I saw a missile [meaning major instability or international financial attack] hit this nation around July, and the Lord then said, ‘Pray against sanctions. The instruction was for the church to repent, call for prayer meetings and get back into unity.
He added: “Otherwise, sanctions are coming…. I’m warning you again! Church – call for mass prayer; humble yourselves, and get united!”
Du Preez also shared in a sermon: “And you know, it is spiritual… I saw like an attack coming in the nation. Not speaking war, nothing like this, but I saw like an arrow, like a missile attacking the nation. I’m speaking now symbolic.”
He further stated: “And I saw this thing happening in June, July, and it’s going to be a big shock for the nation if the church doesn’t pray.”
Du Preez had stated that his prophecy about “missiles” was figurative, not literal. He also clarified that he had used figurative, symbolic and conditional language.
In a follow-up article, titled For the record: Joburg pastor Leon du Preez clarifies ‘missile’ prophecy, The South African also incorrectly attributed his comments as a statement.
The South African acknowledges that it published an article quoting Du Preez’s comments as literal prophecies rather than symbolically, as intended. The writer apologises for the error, which has caused reputational harm to Du Preez.
The writer also failed to solicit Du Preez’s comment before publication and, as a result, did not give him an opportunity to clarify or provide context.