---
title: "Naspers: apartheid history, company acknowledgment and public-policy ties"
language: en
canonical: https://dossiertwist.com/dossiers/naspers/history-donations-and-public-policy/
as_of: 2026-09-21
keywords: ["Naspers","Prosus","voting control","Nasbel","Keerom","Wheatfields","Takealot","PayU","Media24"]
---

# Naspers: apartheid history, company acknowledgment and public-policy ties

- Jurisdiction: ZA (ZA)
- Company register: 1925/001431/06 (South African company identity disclosures)

**Question.** What historical responsibility and political relationships are documented?

**Answer.** Dated journalists’ apologies and the company’s later acknowledgment are retained alongside disclosed donations and advocacy. Neither donations nor shared meetings establish bribery or common corporate control.

## Apartheid history, individual apologies and the later company acknowledgment

- Analysis: Naspers’ publishing origins include a close historical relationship with the National Party and support for apartheid. A contemporary 1997 report preserved in the Justice Department’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission archive records 127 journalists submitting individual apologies. Their statement recognised the newspapers’ role in sustaining the system while acknowledging efforts at change; it was explicitly not a submission on behalf of Naspers. [s-d86] [s-supp-trc-journalists] [s-supp-naspers-history-response]
  - Qualification: Historical corporate responsibility should be described with dated evidence. It does not justify attributing wrongdoing to present employees through family, ethnicity or unrelated professional associations. Weak opinion-based claims about private family relationships are excluded from the accepted network.
  - Response: In an official statement on 16 June 2020, then CEO Bob van Dijk acknowledged Naspers’ indefensible apartheid role, described an added responsibility to help create a more equitable society and affirmed support for democratic ideals. This later acknowledgment belongs beside the historical record, without being treated as proof of every present practice.

## Dated disclosed contributions to two parties

- Analysis: The retained reporting of South African party-funding disclosures records R1 million from Naspers to the Democratic Alliance during July–September 2021 and R1 million to the ANC on 19 November 2021. Both contributions are retained, rather than selecting only one party to imply an exclusive political alignment. [s-d161] [s-d162]
  - Qualification: Disclosed political contributions are not in themselves evidence of bribery, control of a party or editorial instructions to a newspaper. These dated reports do not purport to be a complete register of all later donations.

## Declared lobbying and separate institutional contacts

- Analysis: The records include Prosus’ declared European public-policy engagement on tax and artificial intelligence, an accredited parliamentary representative and meetings involving other companies and advisers. The group also publishes tax-policy positions and submissions on OECD proposals. A US lobbying database reports US$60,000 in 2019 spending through subsidiaries rather than direct Naspers spending. [s-d76] [s-d157] [s-d163]
  - Qualification: Attendance at the same policy meeting is not proof that one participant retained another as a consultant or that they were corporate affiliates. Lobbying figures are tied to their reporting period; a 2019 expense is not a current annual budget. Declared advocacy is not itself evidence of unlawful influence.

## Sources

- [s-d86] Other source · s-d86
- [s-supp-trc-journalists] Media source · s-supp-trc-journalists
- [s-supp-naspers-history-response] Company statement source · s-supp-naspers-history-response
- [s-d161] Media source · s-d161
- [s-d162] Media source · s-d162
- [s-d76] Company statement source · s-d76
- [s-d157] Other source · s-d157
- [s-d163] Other source · s-d163