The question which arose in this matter is whether a spoof on foreign perceptions on Africa and its 
inhabitants indeed amounted to the advocacy of hatred based on race. The Tribunal found the opposite and reasoned as follows: The primary question was whether the Complainants were correct when they argued that the insert amounted to hate speech towards black people in South Africa. The test, according to clause 16.3 of the Broadcasting Code, was whether the material broadcast amounted to the advocacy of hatred based on race that constituted incitement to cause harm. The basic question was whether the insert indeed expressed feelings of hatred based on race. If this question were answered in the negative, it would not have been necessary to inquire as to whether there had been “advocacy” or “incitement” or “harm”. Although the insert was open to some misunderstanding, mainly because the listener would not have had the opportunity of listening to the insert again (as might be the case where he or she had read a newspaper article), it would be wrong to attribute hatred to an insert which satirises a foreign, misinformed view of Africa – a view which in itself represents a patronising, negative stereotype of Africa. The insert challenges stereotypes and presumptions held by non-Africans and European broadcasters who portray Africa as ungovernable. Indeed, it attempts to achieve the exact opposite of advocacy of hatred towards black South Africans. The insert amounts to severe criticism of stereotypes of Africans and Africa and the provocative hook in the piece is the tried and tested racist caricature of the African as a lower form of humanity, a caricature that invariably deteriorates into the primate / monkey / baboon mould. An obvious misconception which is attacked in the insert.
In the result the Tribunal held that the insert amounted to vehement criticism of stereotypes of Africa and of African people. It contained no hatred based on race.
The complaints were not upheld.