The Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA) has upheld a complaint about a June interview on SAFM in which March and March leader Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma made claims about immigrants that the regulator said were not properly handled as opinion—or clearly flagged as disputed and unverified.
In its ruling, the BCCSA found that the SABC failed to flag Ngobese-Zuma’s statements as opinion or challenge them, even though a prior segment with GroundUp’s deputy editor had disputed the same assertions. The commission ordered the SABC to broadcast a summary of its findings and to apologise in the same programme time slot.
GroundUp reports that the SABC publicly apologised for airing the interview on The National Pulse on SAFM on 3 June, during which Ngobese-Zuma made “factual” claims that were not presented clearly enough as opinions.
The matter arose after advocate Ben Winks, commissioner for the BCCSA, upheld a complaint lodged by social justice activist Christopher Rutledge. Rutledge argued that the interview contravened the Free-to-Air Code, which requires that an opinion must be “clearly presented as such”.
Presenter Ashraf Garda had interviewed Ngobese-Zuma as a right to reply to an earlier discussion. That preceding interview, featuring Daniel Steyn—deputy editor of GroundUp—had disputed certain claims made by March and March about immigrants in South Africa.
In his complaint, Rutledge said the core problem was not simply that a controversial guest was given airtime, but that the broadcaster broadcast serious and inflammatory allegations presented as facts without requiring evidence, without verification, and without clearly informing listeners that the allegations were disputed.
“The issue is whether SAFM complied with its obligations under the code when it broadcast a series of serious and highly inflammatory factual allegations concerning migrants, crime, civil society organisations, corruption and national security without requiring evidence, without verification and without clearly informing listeners that the allegations were disputed and unverified.”
Rutledge maintained that Ngobese-Zuma made several “factual assertions” without providing any supporting evidence.
According to the complaint, Ngobese-Zuma claimed that 60% of serious crimes in Gauteng were committed by foreign nationals. She also alleged that foreign-funded organisations in South Africa were using their money to buy arms, that bombs and explosives were entering the country, and that foreign military bases were operating in South Africa. Rutledge also said she claimed foreign nationals escaped prosecution because they were paying the police.
Rutledge argued these were not framed as political opinion but rather factual allegations relating to statistics, corruption, national security, organised criminal activity, and civil society organisations. He added that the broadcaster did not ask her to provide any evidence, and listeners were not informed that the allegations had not been independently verified.
“The code requires that where information is based upon opinion, supposition, rumour or allegations, it must be presented in a manner that clearly indicates that is the case. This did not occur.”
Rutledge further said this was not a situation where the broadcaster had no reason to question the accuracy of the statements. He said SAFM had already devoted a substantial segment to examining and disputing those very claims—meaning the controversy and contestation were known to the broadcaster.
Responding, the SABC said the statements were Ngobese-Zuma’s personal views and that the prior interview with Steyn “ensured listeners were presented with alternative and contradictory perspectives” before hearing her views. The broadcaster said that, taken as a whole, the programme was balanced.
Rutledge, however, said that response did not engage with his specific complaint that SAFM did not meet requirements under the Free-to-Air Code concerning comment. He said the code expects comment to be “truly stated” or “fairly indicated”, and that the statements made by Ngobese-Zuma were “factual propositions” capable of verification or refutation.
In Rutledge’s view, the interview with Steyn showed the broadcaster already knew that several “facts” underpinning Ngobese-Zuma’s political argument were disputed. He argued that the broadcaster therefore had an obligation to scrutinise those statements rather than simply allow them to stand as delivered.
Rutledge said he did not object to the broadcaster’s right to interview controversial public figures or to engage in robust debate. Instead, he argued the regulatory breach lay in how the alleged facts were presented and handled.
The ruling focused on how individual statements were framed, according to Winks. He said the issue was whether each statement by Ngobese-Zuma was an honest expression of opinion, clearly presented as such, and based on facts truly stated or fairly indicated and referred to.
Winks dealt with each of the statements individually and concluded that, in each case, the broadcaster breached the code.
The parties were then asked to make submissions on appropriate sanctions.
In its submissions, the SABC said it accepted full responsibility for its contraventions of the code. It told the commission it was committed to using the findings as a learning opportunity to enhance guidance for presenters and producers, and to strengthen editorial safeguards for high-risk current affairs discussions.
Rutledge argued that the commission’s significance goes beyond this single interview. He said the principle established by the ruling is that a broadcaster does not automatically meet its obligations under the code merely by attributing serious factual allegations to a guest or by describing them as the guest’s views.
Rather, Rutledge said interviewers must interrogate statements, ask for sources or evidentiary basis, and inform listeners when an assertion is disputed or not established.
“The broadcaster was not required to silence the guest. It was required to interrogate the factual foundation of what was being presented to its audience,” Rutledge said.
Winks pointed to another aggravating factor in the ruling: the seriousness of the statements. He said Ngobese-Zuma’s five statements, which were presented as facts, were extremely serious and could expose immigrants to contempt, discrimination, and even displacement.
“The whole world is facing a pandemic of disinformation. In the face of this challenge, the broadcast media need to be particularly alert to the dangers of disinformation and misinformation, most of all when the country is approaching elections.”
He ordered the SABC to broadcast a summary of his findings on the same programme and to apologise for breaching the code.
The broadcaster, having accepted responsibility, was therefore compelled to go back on air with the corrective message required by the commission—turning an interview about political controversy into a test case for how fact-like claims should be treated in public broadcasting when they have been disputed and lack evidentiary support.
