Similar complaints about alleged xenophobia were received against the SABC and Radio 702. 
Broadcasts on matters of public importance must be fair and a balance should be struck between opposing viewpoints on such issues. Whilst the sensitivity of the complainant to the issue of xenophobia is admirable, the Tribunal does not believe that clause 35 has been contravened in the broadcasts complained about. The Tribunal agrees that it amounts to irresponsible broadcasting to identify certain groups within the (alleged or proved) criminal sphere, where it is not in the public interest to do so. South Africans should, however, be made aware of lurking dangers and it is not irresponsible to identify such dangers. The Tribunal did not get the impression that there was any malice in the mentioning of the nationalities (allegedly) involved. There was no evidence of xenophobia, as alleged by the complainant. The Tribunal is of the view that it is legitimate for a broadcaster, within the parameters of freedom of expression, to permit a debate to include critical references to foreign nationals. A reasonable listener is not likely to believe that all Nigerians are criminals when interviewees and even presenters express such views. The Tribunal aggress with the complainant that it would be highly irresponsible to simply categorize a foreign group as criminals. In the Tribunal’s view this is not what the programmes referred to did. They simply formed part in a debate which is highly relevant. The debate does not promote xenophobia but raises issues which are particularly relevant for listeners. At times freedom of expression, which is a precious Constitutional asset, would lead to listeners taking offense. But the Constitutional Court has held that freedom of expression will, at times, even offend. When that offense is also reasonable in terms of section 36 of the Constitution, it would be unacceptable also in terms of the Broadcasting Code. Before the Tribunal will find this to have been the case, the unfairness has to be unequivocally clear. If this approach is not applied, debate would become a cloistered virtue in which people who express views which are offensive or highly critical, would tend to look over their shoulders at the long shadow of what, in those circumstances, could be termed a dictatorial state reminiscent of Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa. This situation is a far cry from the ideals that are strived for daily within a constitutional framework which exhales the pure mountain air of freedom. The Tribunal is, accordingly, of the view that the limits of clause 35 were not transgressed by the broadcasts referred to by the complainant.
The complaints were dismissed.