Key Takeaways
- The Broadcasting Complaints Commission (BCC) upheld a complaint against SAFM for broadcasting an interview with March and March leader Jacinta Ngobese‑Zuma that presented unverified “factual” claims as if they were established truths.
- The commissioner found that SAFM breached the Free‑to‑Air Code by not clearly indicating that the statements were opinion, failing to ask for evidence, and not informing listeners that the allegations had been disputed in a prior segment.
- Ngobese‑Zuma alleged, among other things, that 60 % of serious crimes in Gauteng were committed by foreign nationals, that foreign‑funded groups were buying arms, that bombs and explosives were entering South Africa, that foreign military bases operated in the country, and that foreigners avoided prosecution by paying police.
- The BCC ruled that each of these statements constituted factual propositions capable of verification, not mere political opinion, and that the broadcaster had a duty to interrogate their factual basis.
- As sanction, the BCC directed SAFM to broadcast a summary of the ruling on the same programme and to issue a public apology for violating the code.
- The decision underscores a broader principle: attributing serious factual claims to a guest does not satisfy the broadcaster’s obligations; presenters must verify, challenge, and contextualise such claims to guard against disinformation, especially ahead of elections.
Background of the Broadcast
On 3 June, SAFM’s current‑affairs programme The National Pulse aired an interview with Jacinta Ngobese‑Zuma, leader of the activist group March and March. Presenter Ashraf Garda framed the segment as a “right to reply” to an earlier interview with Daniel Steyn, deputy editor of GroundUp, who had disputed several claims made by Ngobese‑Zuma regarding immigrants in South Africa. The interview proceeded without any follow‑up questions requesting evidence or clarification of the statements she made.
The Complaint Filed
Social‑justice activist Christopher Rutledge lodged a formal complaint with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, alleging that SAFM had contravened a clause of the Free‑to‑Air Code which requires that opinion be “clearly presented as such.” Rutledge argued that the broadcast presented serious and highly inflammatory factual allegations about migrants, crime, civil society organisations, corruption, and national security without requiring evidence, verification, or a clear indication that the claims were disputed.
Specific Allegations Made by Ngobese‑Zuma
During the interview, Ngobese‑Zuma asserted that:
- 60 % of serious crimes in Gauteng were committed by foreign nationals;
- Foreign‑funded organisations in South Africa were using their money to purchase arms;
- Bombs and explosives were entering the country;
- Foreign military bases were operating within South Africa; and
- Foreign nationals escaped prosecution by paying the police.
These statements were presented as factual propositions, capable of being verified or refuted, rather than as subjective political opinion.
Broadcaster’s Defence
SABC responded by maintaining that Ngobese‑Zuma’s remarks were her personal views and that the preceding interview with GroundUp’s deputy editor had already provided listeners with alternative, contradictory perspectives. The broadcaster argued that, taken as a whole, the programme was balanced and therefore complied with the code.
Commissioner’s Analysis
Advocate Ben Winks, the BCC commissioner, examined each of Ngobese‑Zuma’s five statements individually. He determined that, in every case, the broadcaster had failed to meet the code’s requirements: the statements were not clearly labelled as opinion, no evidence was requested, and listeners were not informed that the allegations had been disputed in the earlier segment. Winks concluded that SAFM had breached the Free‑to‑Air Code on each point.
Aggravating Factors Considered
The commissioner noted that the statements were exceptionally serious and could expose immigrants in South Africa to contempt, discrimination, and even displacement. He emphasized the broader context of a global “pandemic of disinformation,” warning that broadcast media must be especially vigilant when the country approaches elections, as unverified claims can rapidly undermine public trust and social cohesion.
Sanction Imposed
Following the ruling, the parties were invited to propose appropriate sanctions. The BCC directed SAFM to:
- Broadcast a summary of the commissioner’s findings on the same programme (The National Pulse); and
- Issue a public apology for breaching the Free‑to‑Air Code.
The broadcaster accepted full responsibility for its contraventions and pledged to use the outcome as a learning opportunity to improve presenter training and editorial safeguards for high‑risk current‑affairs discussions.
Implications for Broadcasters
Rutledge highlighted that the decision establishes an important principle: merely attributing serious factual allegations to a guest or describing them as that person’s views does not discharge a broadcaster’s obligations under the code. Interviewers must actively scrutinise the factual foundation of claims, request sources or evidentiary support, and inform listeners when assertions are disputed or unverified. This proactive approach is essential to combat misinformation and maintain the integrity of public discourse, particularly in politically sensitive periods.
Conclusion
The Broadcasting Complaints Commission’s ruling against SAFM serves as a reminder that broadcasters bear a rigorous responsibility to verify, contextualise, and clearly label information presented to the public. By upholding the complaint, the BCC reinforced the necessity of journalistic diligence in the face of potentially harmful disinformation, ensuring that audiences receive accurate, well‑substantiated content rather than unverified assertions presented as fact.