The Registrar received a complaint from the father of a child suffering from cerebral palsy, who was 
shown in a television programme in June 2005. The second complainant, which is an organization which concerns itself with litigation in which children are involved, joined as a second complainant. The programme dealt with maintenance problems of mothers who have custody of a child, but who are not paid the amounts ordered by a Court. Concerns were raised about the privacy of the child which was invaded upon by the programme and also aspects which treated the father unfairly. The SABC’s defence was that in the light of the serious problem concerning the non-payment of maintenance in South Africa, it was in the public interest to have shown the visuals of the child. The father also complained that the programme had not correctly reflect the content of a detailed letter which he had provided to the SABC. He had, on advice, not been available to take part in the programme.
Although the personal telephonic contact between Mr P and the SABC took place rather shortly before the broadcast, it is clear that he would not, in any case, have been prepared to take part in the programme. He did this on legal advice and his reaction is understandable. Mr P, however, provided the SABC with his view in writing. He conceded that it would have been impossible to have put all the details of his written response in the pogramme. The producer of the programme, however, phoned him and summarized what they would say about his response in the programme. He would seem to have been satisfied with what he heard. Nevertheless, once he had viewed the programme, his reaction was that he had, unjustifiably, been made a scapegoat by the programme. He conceded that he was in arrear with the maintenance payments but explained that, given his financial position, he was doing his best. One aspect stood out: the programme had incorrectly created the impression that he had not been prepared to assist in the purchasing of a special mechanical chair for the afflicted child. He explained that this was not the case: after the medical fund involved had stated what it would pay, he provided the balance. He referred us to the necessary documentation to support this and no one doubted during the hearing that he had, in fact, provided the balance. He also felt that the programme had wrongly created the impression that he was well-off and that, in spite of his “riches”, was neglecting his son.
Although the Tribunal was of the view that the SABC was bona fide in its error, the Tribunal could not find any basis for finding that it had been in the public interest to have broadcast visuals of the child, which clearly identified him. The non-payment of maintenance in spite of court orders is a matter which is notorious and need to be countered in the public interest. However, it was unnecessary to have shown visuals of the child. His face could have been censored out in the interest of his privacy. His mother, who has custody over the child, obviously gave permission for the broadcast. Such permission would, however, not establish public interest in terms of the Code. That is a matter which the tribunal has to decide on. The Tribunal, accordingly, found that the privacy of the child had been invaded upon and that this also amounted to a contravention of the Broadcasting Code.
In so far as the allegations of unfair treatment were concerned, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was impossible for the SABC to have covered all the points mentioned by Mr P. He conceded that he was in arrear with the maintenance payments. Any reference to this aspect by the SABC was, accordingly, correct. However, in so far as the payment for the mechanical chair was concerned, he was clearly prejudiced. The impression was clearly created that the mechanical chair could not be bought since Mr P was unwilling to contribute. The code had, accordingly, also been contravened in this respect.
The Tribunal held that it would not be in the interest of the Child to require any rectifying broadcast.
CLICK TO VIEW FULL JUDGMENT Case-No-43-2005