Selective duty's and only want media exposure

Dear Mr Kriel and AfriForum Leadership, I write again with urgency, not merely as a disgruntled former member or donor, but as a citizen deeply disappointed in what appears to be glaring inconsistency between AfriForum’s stated mission and your actions in my case. I set out the facts, legal standards, contradictions, and my demands below. I expect a substantial response within 14 business days; anything less will be taken as further evidence that your institution is more about image and selective protection than justice. ________________________________________ 1. Facts (Undisputed in my view) In 2022, I contacted Infinite Debt Solutions to enquire about debt review. I never signed any debt review agreement, never finalised any process, and there was no court order placing me under debt review. Despite this, Infinite Debt Solutions flagged me as being under debt review with all major credit bureaus. I only discovered it when checking my credit record myself. I have since settled every financial obligation; I have no outstanding debt. Infinite Debt Solutions is now demanding R2,000 to remove this false listing. I have lodged complaints with the National Credit Regulator (NCR) and emailed the Minister of Trade and Industry; neither has rep****. SAFPS (South African ***** Prevention Services) has flagged me as a *****ster, allegedly at the behest of Bidvest Bank and ABSA. I have never had a Bidvest Bank account, nor been convicted or charged with ***** or any ******** offence. My record is clean. I have attempted resolution directly with SAFPS; they refuse to remove the false listing. According to them, the ***** label stays for ten years. Because of these flags, I have suffered severe harm: inability to open or access banking accounts or credit, reputational harm, the stigma of false ***** or financial dereliction, financial damages in “hundreds of thousands” of rand. I approached AfriForum seeking your assistance, as a financial member, believing your organisation stands for justice and civil rights. Your response: a refusal, on the basis that my matter is “individual,” “outside your legal mandate,” “you do not offer personal legal services,” and you do not have capacity. (Reply dated [as in your letter].) ________________________________________ 2. Legal Norms & Constitutional / Statutory Rights At Play Your refusal implicates or potentially violates the following rights and legal principles: Right to dignity (Section 10, Constitution) — being falsely labelled a *****ster or debt-defaulter is defamatory and injures dignity. Presumption of innocence / fair administrative action — whoever is making these listings (credit bureaus, SAFPS, or debt review agents) must have lawful justification. False administrative action without due process is ******* under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). Protection of personal information under POPIA — false, inaccurate or outdated information stored or disseminated about me must be corrected or removed. Defamation law (common law + constitutional overlay) — wrongful statements harming reputation are actionable. Constitutional obligations for non-state actors when their actions or omissions affect constitutional rights, especially when state or quasi-state bodies are involved in listing or credit information. ________________________________________ 3. What AfriForum Claims vs. What AfriForum Does Your refusal rests on several assertions: Your claim What it implies Why it is inconsistent or legally weak “We are not a legal firm and cannot take instructions for individual cases.” You refuse to assist persons even when clear legal wrongs are involved. Many NGOs or civil society groups limit mandate, but when constitutional rights are involved (public interest, false listing), you’ve shown capacity and willingness in other cases. Public interest litigation is part of AfriForum’s work. 

“Adv. Nel’s unit only handles ******** matters / private prosecutions.” You draw a line between ******** cases vs civil / administrative wrongs. That does not address civil rights abuses or defamation / false credit listing, which are legal wrongs that can have constitutional implications. Also, civil litigation is within AfriForum’s established legal interventions (see land rights, expropriation, local government service delivery) when public interest is implicated. 

“Resources are limited; cannot assist all members.” You select who to help. That may be factual, but you then need transparent, consistent criteria. If those criteria exclude cases like mine, they must still be lawful, non-discriminatory, and not arbitrary. Also, refusal to assist cannot be used to deny all meaningful access to justice. The law demands administrative fairness. ________________________________________ 4. Case Law & Precedents Showing AfriForum Acts Selectively These cases show that AfriForum does take up matters that align with its agenda or publicity, even when legal complexity or cost is high. Examples: AfriForum has launched legal challenges to the Expropriation Act, arguing it jeopardises property rights.  It has engaged in public interest litigation to force municipalities to deliver services (water, electricity) and to challenge ******** levies etc.  It has acted in equality & hate speech cases (e.g. “Dubul’ ibhunu / Kill the Boer”, and in Nelson Mandela Foundation / flag display cases) when these matters attract public attention or align with its core identity agenda.  Thus, your argument that “case must align with public agenda / visibility / related to Afrikaner identity / property rights, etc.” is supported by what you do pick, not what you refuse. ________________________________________ 5. Why My Case Is Public Interest / Deserves AfriForum’s Assistance My case is not a trivial private dispute; it strikes at multiple systemic issues: It involves *****ulent and unconstitutional practices by entities entrusted with credit and ***** prevention — which affects many people, not only me, perhaps millions, who suffer from misreporting or false listings. The damage is fundamental: access to finance, credit, basic participation in economic life. This is no small matter; it is a constitutional, civil right. It is precisely the sort of matter where public interest litigation or civil rights advocacy should function, especially for organisations like yours that claim to protect rights, minority or otherwise. ________________________________________ 6. My Legal Arguments For Why You Should Assist Standing and locus: As a member and donor, you have a reasonable expectation that your membership means support when constitutional rights are infringed. Public interest: The matter is one of public interest because it touches on consumer rights, credit bureau law (National Credit Act), false or inaccurate listing practices, and ***** prevention entities. Precedent: Courts have found that mislistings (*****, credit, defamation) give rise to actionable civil wrongs. Risk to reputation: Staying silent or refusing to assist in clearly wrongful actions that match your mission undermines your credibility and exposes you to legitimate criticism. ________________________________________ 7. What I Demand From AfriForum A personal, written review by you (CEO) of my case, including all documentation I submit (credit bureau entries, correspondence with Infinite Debt Solutions, SAFPS, etc.). A public acknowledgement (if necessary) that these types of cases (false debt review listings and false ***** listings) are civil rights issues affecting many, and fall within the ambit of what AfriForum should respond to, especially for financial supporters. Assistance in compelling Infinite Debt Solutions and SAFPS to remove the false listings, including legal or administrative intervention if required. Compensation for the harm done so far — at least ensuring I am made whole: restoration of access to banking, credit, removal of false listings, and apology or retraction if needed. Transparent criteria: Provide me (and members) with your criteria for taking cases (legal, resource, public interest etc.), so we see how cases are chosen. If you refuse or do not respond meaningfully within 14 business days, I will assume that your refusal is part of a broader policy of selective justice and will proceed to: Make the full correspondence public via media and expose.org.za Approach legal clinics and possibly institute legal claim(s) for misrepresentation / breach of duty (if applicable) Seek judicial review / complaint with relevant regulatory authorities (e.g. Legal Practice Council, rights commissions) ________________________________________ 8. Legal Risks to AfriForum If You Refuse A failure to act in cases where constitutional and legal wrongs are plainly evident risks reputational damage; your stated vision and mission are subject to scrutiny under constitutional values (equality, dignity, fairness). If you selectively assist cases that align with your political or identity agenda but refuse cases affecting less-publicised or less “popular” individuals, you may be exposed to accusations of ************** or breach of trust from members. There may also be legal exposure if any internal promises, membership agreements, or representations were made that you would support civil rights / legal justice — one could allege misrepresentation. ________________________________________ 9. Conclusion I ask you to reconsider, in view of what I have set out above. I am not seeking special favours but equal application of justice as you promote. If your institution claims to defend constitutional rights, then those rights must be defended even when the case is less visible, less convenient, or less aligned with fundraising or media profile. I await your substantive response in 14 business days. Yours faithfully, Jan Hendrik Steph**** Venter