The South African Police Services lodged a complaint against e-tv, a television broadcaster which 
falls under the jurisdiction of the BCCSA in terms of section 54(3) of the Electronic Communications Act 2005. The core of the complaint was that e-tv, in its commentary programme, Third Degree, rendered a biased report on the actions of the SAPS in a matter which dealt with serial murder and attacks on children living in a rural area. The programme accused the SAPS of initially having ignored and thereafter having been slow to protect the relevant community against the alleged serial murder.
The Tribunal was of the view that the programme bears some bias against the SAPS. This was based on the fact that not all information was available to the producer. But that was not the fault of the producer. Evidence was led that the journalist involved had made numerous calls to the official involved, but to no avail. The journalist, furthermore, knew that it is the approach of the national office that interviews are not granted without questions being made available beforehand. This she was not prepared to do in the light of e-tv’s policy in this regard. In the event, three scenes were broadcast where the local police spokesperson explains what the police were doing about the matter. The spokesperson came across as honest and forthright, even making a concession on one occasion. Footage (provided by the SAPS) of a massive police hunt for the criminal was also shown. Furthermore, the hunt was shown to have been successful in that, at least, a suspect was arrested. On the whole, the SAPS efforts were not portrayed as negatively as the representatives of SAPS argued.
Held -that it could not be concluded that the broadcast contravened clause 35. Since clause 35 places a rather vague duty on broadcasters which is practically, and almost always, unattainable, the Tribunal’s approach has constantly been that it must be unequivocally clear that the requirements of the clause have not been complied with, before a finding is made against a broadcaster. This is a freedom-of-speech orientated approach and accords with the approach of the Constitutional Court that the primary question should be whether the freedom of expression guarantee could accommodate the material broadcast. So, even if the material broadcast demonstrates some bias or is even offensive, it does not automatically follow that the Broadcasting Code has been contravened. It is only in cases where it is clear that a limit to the fundamental right is justified in terms of section 36 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, that a finding against the broadcaster would be justified.
The complaint was not upheld.