On the 2nd October a break-in occurred in the official homes of two Ministers. One of these homes is 
the home of Mr Ngcondo Balfour, the Minister of Correctional Services. Both homes are situated in an estate that is guarded by the South African Police Services. E-tv decided to inquire into these burglaries which, in their opinion, was in the public interest. The core question was how a burglary could have taken place in such a closely-guarded area. A presenter and cameraman went to the estate, and before they had even stopped their vehicle, they were waved in by the guard at the main gate of the estate. After driving around the estate looking for the houses of the Ministers concerned, they eventually found the house of Minister Balfour.
On the same evening, e-tv broadcast an insert of their visit. It showed the presenter knocking on the front door, opening it, and calling out, “Anyone home?”. She entered and the cameraman followed. Shots that were broadcast showed the scullery, the lounge and what was said to be the bedroom of the Minister. The last scene included a shot of what was said to be a Springbok rugby jersey belonging to the Minister (the Minister had previously been the Minister of Sport). The insert also suggested that a person who had the previous week been released from prison by way of a remission of sentences, was one of the suspected burglars.
The Minister filed a complaint which could – as a result of circumstances beyond the BCCSA’s control – only be heard in February 2007.
Held that there had been an unreasonable invasion of privacy when the Minister’s, lounge, scullery and bedroom were shown in the insert. There was no legitimate public interest in showing the inside rooms of the house. It was sufficient to have shown that unobstructed access could be gained by way of the front door to the foyer. However, e-tv successfully showed that permission to enter had been granted by a domestic worker at the house. In the circumstances, this was a defense.
Lastly, the question arose whether e-tv was justified in creating the impression that one of the suspected burglars had been released as a result of a remission of sentences by the Minister. According to the complainant, this amounted to malicious reporting since, at that stage, no one had been arrested. The complainant filed the affidavit of a Captain Owen Anthony. His evidence was that when the housebreaking and theft case was reported, no suspects had, until recently, been arrested. According to him, no information was divulged to e-tv regarding arrests and/or the criminal status of suspects. He contended that the insert was incorrect when it was stated that suspects had already been arrested at that stage. As far as he knew, there had been no investigator or so-called police source in his team who had spoken to e-tv. Conversely e-tv was not prepared to disclose its source for this information. The two sets of evidence led before this Tribunal are, accordingly, diametrically opposed. There was no way in which the Tribunal could obtain further clarity on this aspect. He was not prepared to divulge the identity of the suspects under arrest, since the matter was sub judice.
Held that the Tribunal was not convinced that this was a case where circumstances would demand, in the interest of public safety or the interests of the administration of justice, that the source must be disclosed. The cases for both sides are, accordingly, evenly balanced, and it would be unfair to come to a decision against the broadcaster under these circumstances. If, when the criminal trial takes place and the identity of the accused is revealed, and if it appears that e-tv was wrong, e-tv may then have the duty of rectifying its error in the event of an error having been made in the insert. Complaints accordingly dismissed.