SABC censorship end of Act One?
After weeks of acrimony, protest actions, court cases and even a clash between the SABC hierarchy and the ANC, the curtain came down on the first act of the SABC censorship saga this week with the broadcaster’s management – at one point brash and defiant – apparently in disarray and facing costs orders, notes Daily News. The seven journalists who bore the brunt of the SABC’s animosity – they were suspended, fired, then turned away despite a Labour Court ruling before finally being reinstated when the broadcaster thought better about launching an appeal – are back at work. But the final act – a bid by the journalists to get Constitutional Court clarity on the role of the public broadcaster – has still to be played out.
A Daily Maverick report described Wednesday as ‘a bizarre day at the SABC’. The reinstatement of the seven, notes Daily News, followed an about-turn by the broadcaster, which had earlier barred four of the journalists, who the Labour Court said could resume their duties, from entering the building. The change of heart came in the afternoon when SABC spokesperson Kaizer Kganyago announced the broadcaster would not pursue further legal action against seven of the journalists dismissed for challenging its controversial protest policy. The DM report notes that on Tuesday the Labour Court said four of the eight journalists dismissed for challenging the policy and culture at the SABC should be able to return to work immediately and continue with their jobs as though the suspensions and dismissals had never occurred (see report below). Foeta Krige, Suna Venter, Krivani Pillay and Jacques Steenkamp went to work on Wednesday morning but were told they could not return because the SABC planned to appeal the Labour Court ruling. Trade union Solidarity, which represents the four, threatened the broadcaster with bringing a compliance order and an application for contempt of court if they weren’t allowed back by 16:00, after which the SABC relented.
The SABC’s change of tack was labelled a victory against censorship by trade union Solidarity, according to a report on the IoL site. ‘Solidarity and the journalists are obviously very relieved about the latest development. However, we are disappointed that we had to threaten further court action before the dismissed journalists were allowed back at work,’ said union chief executive Dirk Hermann. One of the journalists reportedly told News24 the decision to allow them back to the office was a relief, but also raised concerns. ‘I welcome the SABC's decision and I am thankful that management came to their senses, but I have to wonder why the sudden U-turn since earlier this afternoon. They were still of the opinion that we're not welcome. Now we are wondering if we will be left alone to do our work, or if we will be further subject to victimisation?’ Meanwhile, a Beeld report notes the costs order, in terms of which acting news head Simon Tebele and radio news head Sebolelo Ditlhakanyane were told to give reasons within five days why a personal costs order should not be made, stands. Hermann says they would have asked for another personal costs order if the appeal had gone ahead and they suspect that this played a role in the decision to abandon the appeal.
Full News24 report Full Beeld report
The Labour Court ruling was delivered by Judge Andre van Niekerk on behalf of Judge Robert Lagrange. Lagrange found the journalists’ dismissals to be invalid as they breached their contracts of employment, which entitled them to a formal hearing before being fired. According to a BDlive report he referred at length to the journalists’ argument that their dismissals breached their right to freedom of expression. He noted that the journalists’ counsel Steven Budlender had acknowledged freedom of expression did not entitle employees to say whatever they wanted about their employer, which might put their employer in a bad light. But the SABC had ‘exceptional features’. It was the public broadcaster and ‘t he public has an interest in how it is run’. Journalists also had ethical and constitutional obligations, ‘which they must at least aspire to’. Codes of conduct that regulate the media required news to be reported truthfully, accurately and fairly, he said. These duties applied particularly to those journalists who worked at the public broadcaster, because of its special mandate. La Grange also said the case was indeed urgent because ‘it cannot be reassuring’ for journalists currently working at the SABC to know that their colleagues remained dismissed even while the SABC had agreed not to enforce the ban. It was also important that the SABC’s ‘will and ability to fulfil its mandate’ would not be questioned ‘at a time when the role of the SABC will be in the spotlight in the course of the imminent local elections’.
The dismissals were ‘authorised with reckless disregard’ for pending applications, costs and benefits to the SABC, Lagrange noted. ‘I am satisfied that there is no question that the applicants should not bear the costs of bringing this application. That this should occur during a time of financial crisis makes it more worrying. The only question is whether these costs should be levied on those who took the decision (to dismiss the four) or on the SABC as an entity.’ A Mail & Guardian report notes newly-appointed acting head of news, Simon Tebele, came under fire for playing an ‘active role’ in the events. ‘I think it is a ppropriate that the person who appears to have authorised the dismissals when signing the dismissal letters should be given an opportunity to explain why he should not be held liable, at least in part, for the costs,' Lagrange said. Tebele and general manager for radio news and current affairs, Sebolelo Ditlhakane, were ordered to file affidavits within five days and explain why they should not be held personally liable for the legal costs.
Negotiations between the SABC and senior political anchor Vuyo Mvoko for his return to work broke down yesterday (Thursday) after he refused to retract his public criticism of the lack of editorial independence at the broadcaster, says legal writer Franny Rabkin in a BDlive report. Mvoko was one of eight people who lost their jobs for objecting to the ban on the broadcast of footage of violent protests where public property is burnt. After court action, the other seven were reinstated on Wednesday and returned to work yesterday. Legalbrief notes that Mvoko’s is the latest in a series of cases the SABC has had to defend, with the final test still to come in the C onstitutional Court should it grant the journalists' request for an hearing on the censorship issue. The BDlive report says Mvoko – employed in terms of an independent contractor agreement – was informed that he would no longer be ‘scheduled’ by the SABC because he had brought the public broadcaster into disrepute following publication of an article, My Hell at SABC, in The Star newspaper. In it, Mvoko described his personal experience of editorial interference and emphasised the importance of free debate in editorial meetings. He was scathing about chief operating officer Hlaudi Motsoeneng and former heads of news Jimi Matthews and Snuki Zikalala, says the report.
The SABC offered to take Mvoko back if he retracted his statements, but he refused, said his counsel, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, in the Gauteng High Court (Johannesburg) yesterday (Thursday). Ngcukaitobi said the matter would be re-enrolled for Tuesday, the day generally set aside for urgent applications. In his court papers, Mvoko said that, by not scheduling him, the SABC had breached their agreement. It was not him but the SABC that had brought itself into disrepute by its ban, he is quoted as saying by BDlive. ‘Being critical of a public broadcaster’s censorship policies is not the same thing as bringing that public broadcaster into disrepute,’ he said. What was happening at the SABC was a ‘full onslaught on the fundamenta l rights enshrined in the Constitution’, said Mvoko. In his affidavit, he described other instances of editorial interference, including the decision to discontinue a show after Public Protector Thuli Madonsela was invited to appear and the excision of portions of an interview with President Jacob Zuma, on the request of the Presidency. In an answering affidavit, SABC’s general manager for news special events, Simon Tebele, said Mvoko was an independent contractor and was not entitled to insist on being scheduled. The SABC had a right to protect its good name and if the court were to insist on Mvoko’s being scheduled it would be an incursion into the SABC’s editorial independence, he said.
In the latest Labour Court action on the matter, trade union Bemawu has been granted a costs order, which gives the SABC five days to identify persons responsible for the dismissal of three journalists who were subsequently reinstated along with four others. An SABC News report notes the union asked the court to order the SABC to pay for legal costs incurred during its efforts to reinstate Lukhanyo Calata, Busisiwe Ntuli and Thandeka Gqubule. Earlier this week the Labour Court gave SABC management five days to explain why they should not be held personally responsible for the legal costs of the other four journalists, who returned to work yesterday (Thursday).
Communications Minister Faith Muthambi yesterday (Thursday) dismissed the notion that there was censorship at the SABC. She said the SABC informed and educated people compared to mainstream media which was ‘feeding propaganda’ to the public, notes a BDlive report. She brushed off comments that she had been quiet in the wake of the controversy at the public broadcaster, saying: ‘I don’t know what you mean by censorship.’ She accused mainstream media of writing negatively about the government, describing this as ‘the propaganda we (are) feeding our people’. She added: ‘We cannot allow a situation where the public is misled.’
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
