At the core of the complaint by the Inkatha Freedom Party was the fact that at a session of the Truth 
and Reconciliation Commission, Amnesty Committee, a Mr Nosenga, who applied for amnesty, observed that Dr Mangosuthu Buthelezi, the President of the Inkatha Freedom Party, had praised them for what is generally known as the Boipatong massacre. The Complainant rejected as false this reference to Dr Buthelezi and argued that before the SABC could broadcast such a statement, it should have approached the Complainant for its comment in this regard and broadcast that as well.
Section 39 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995 provides that “any person who anticipates any finding of the Commission regarding an investigation in a manner calculated to influence its proceedings or such findings” or “does anything in relation to the Commission which, if done in relation to a court of law, would constitute contempt of court” is guilty of an offence. The Commission accordingly held that it would be illegal for the SABC to approach any person in regard to what has been said in evidence during a TRC hearing and to broadcast his or her comment.
However, there rests an onerous duty on the SABC to broadcast any countering statements during the subsequent stages of the hearing. This was done and the broadcasts informed viewers and listeners that Mr Nosenga was subjected to severe cross examination and that countering evidence emanated from this.
In conclusion it should be taken into consideration that the likely listeners, who would have an interest in political matters and hearings of the TRC Amnesty Committee, would realise that evidence before the TRC Amnesty Committee is subject to countering evidence as well as cross-examination. Once again, however, in spite of this situation, broadcasters should constantly keep a close watch on countering evidence and cross-examination which emerge after injurious statements have been made by witnesses at the TRC hearings and, of course, generally, during court procedures.
Had the countering material not been broadcast, the complaint would have been upheld.
Complaint accordingly dismissed.