The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) notes the chastisement of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) by the South Gauteng High Court for the politically motivated ‘widespread manipulation’ of the news under the leadership of the former Head of News, Snuki Zikalala. We welcome the court’s order that the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) determine the complaints laid against the SABC for the blacklisting of political commentators that Mr Zikalala viewed as too critical of government, afresh.

The SABC has for too long run renegade against its legislative mandate and constitutional obligation to provide news coverage that is unbiased, impartial, balanced and free from political interference.

While most of the instances that the court dealt with occurred under the Mbeki administration, Jacob Zuma has demonstrated attempts to exact political control over the public broadcaster just like the Mbeki administration did. Indeed, over the last 18 months numerous instances of blatant bias in the SABC’s handling of its current and foreign affairs brief, and in its appointment of staff, have been documented. Fifteen recent examples include:

1. The ban of all coverage featuring Thabo Mbeki, reportedly instituted by SABC Head of News Phil Molefe. Details…
2. The decision to spend R725,000 on acquiring the rights to a propaganda film about President Zuma. Details…
3. The unilateral – and therefore illegal - appointment of Phil Molefe to the position of Head of News by Zuma appointee Ben Ngubane. Details…
4. SABC TV News’s suppression of the major national news story relating to Jacob Zuma’s love child with Sonono Khoza.
5. SABC chairperson Ben Ngubane’s refusal to distance the SABC from Julius Malema’s statement that the ANC owns the SABC. Details…
6. The SABC’s refusal to cover a DA press conference revealing South Africa’s arms deals with dictators, which was regarded as a lead news story by every other media house in the country.
7. SABC TV News’s inaccurate reporting of the ANC Youth League’s vandalising of toilets erected by the City of Cape Town. SABC reported ‘no real damage’ to property had occurred, despite all evidence to the contrary.
8. The SABC’s suppression of a story about 13 out of 14 DA-run municipalities spending 100% of their Municipal Infrastructure Grants. Details…
9. The SABC’s failure to report on the ANC Youth League’s calls to make the City of Cape Town ungovernable, despite the story being a lead news item across other news outlets.
10. The SABC’s failure to cover the DA’s victory in two traditional ANC strongholds, Gugulethu-Heideveld and Theewaterskloof, in early 2010, and their subsequent decision to grant DA critic Pierre de Vos the only piece of commentary on the subject.
11. The decision to pull cameras from the DA’s national education campaign launch in Soshanguve, two hours ahead of time, with no explanation.
12. The suppression of a recorded interview with DA leader Helen Zille. Details…
13. After the DA uncovered that Schabir Shaik had applied for a presidential pardon, despite attempts by the Justice Minister to suppress this information, SABC TV News presented the story in a way that created the impression that the Justice Department had volunteered the information (and made no mention of the DA).
14. Attempts by the SABC to bribe provincial governments into paying for space on Morning Live. Details…
15. The SABC’s inaccurate depicting of the DA’s Freedom Day march, as having been disrupted by ANC members.

The ANC’s misunderstanding of the role of the public broadcaster is well established. In its 2007 Polokwane Resolution, it committed to “encourage” the SABC to “promote local content that is consistent with the values of the ANC”. The illegal appointment of the current Head of News, Phil Molefe by the former GCEO and the Chairperson of the SABC board Dr Ben Ngubane, demonstrated that the ANC was making good on this promise. According to a memorandum sent by members of the SABC board to then Minister Nyanda, Ngubane was “operating under the direct instructions of the President of the Republic and that he was resolved to appoint his preferred candidate.”

We should be cognisant of the fact that while this judgment has brought political manipulation at the public broadcaster to the fore of public awareness today, such manipulation has been occurring for some time and its ramifications have been numerous. These ramifications go to the very heart of our democracy and the way the somewhat intangible right of freedom of expression is experienced by citizens and how we are viewed as a democratic society by the international community. The two are deeply intertwined.

Last year, Freedom House, an independent international body that monitors freedom globally, changed the status of South Africa’s press from ‘free’ to ‘partially free.’ One of the categories of consideration in this determination was the country’s political environment, including such criteria as, among others: “To what extent are media outlets’ news and information content determined by the government or a particular partisan interest?” and “Is there official or unofficial censorship?” Real consideration of both of these indices in the South African context implicates the SABC, which has been guilty on both counts.

This then must be the context in which we view this judgment. For too long, respective ANC administrations have abused the public broadcaster for their own political purposes; our broader freedom of expression has suffered because of it and our society has been unable to fully engage in the type of reflection engendered by a truly free media. We shall continue to focus our efforts on ensuring that only politically independent individuals are selected for the SABC Board as currently being considered by Parliament. What is fundamentally needed, however, is a sea change in the way in which public representatives engage with, and conceive of, a public broadcaster in this country.

The SABC has for too long run renegade against its legislative mandate and constitutional obligation to provide news coverage that is unbiased, impartial, balanced and free from political interference. The DA has time and time again laid complaints against the SABC for this failure to uphold these principle, with no success. We are therefore encouraged by the court’s criticism of ICASA. The DA agrees that ICASA has indeed been rather lackadaisical in its regulation of the broadcasting industry, and particularly the public broadcaster. We believe that the court’s judgment has opened up room for the redefinition of the role of ICASA. The DA will study the judgement and the governing legislation of ICASA with the view to submitting a Private Members Bill aimed at further empowering ICASA, and ensuring that those appointed to the independent regulator are independent from political influence.