The complaint concerns a FOKUS programme in which the SABC allegedly did not grant The 
Landmark Foundation Trust a fair and reasonable opportunity to reply to allegations made against it by farmers concerning the issue of compensation for livestock losses as a result of leopard killings. The Complainant is of the view that the SABC failed to verify allegations prior to broadcasting and that the programme therefore was biased.
The Tribunal held that programmes on controversial issues of public importance should have sufficient balance in order to afford audiences the opportunity to form their own opinions. The SABC is a public broadcaster and a free-to-air licensee and its documentary programmes are watched by millions of South Africans. It is obliged to fairly present opposing points of view on controversial issues of public importance and to afford parties whose views are criticised the right to reply. In the case under discussion the SABC failed to meet these obligations to the public since the complainant’s views were not included in the programme. The credibility of the Landmark Foundation Trust was questioned in the programme and it was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend itself.
The Tribunal is of the view that a reasonable right of reply should have been given to the Landmark Foundation Trust. Despite the SABC’s view that it did afford the complainant sufficient opportunity to defend himself and his organisation, the Tribunal concluded that the fact remains that the story was broadcast in a manner which is inconsistent with the requirements of the Code of Conduct. Therefore the SABC is requested to make an offer to the Landmark Foundation Trust to correct this oversight in the next available programme and to submit a copy of this offer to the BCCSA within twenty-one days. If the SABC fails to make a reasonable offer in this regard, the BCCSA will have no other option than to find a contravention of the Code of Conduct and to impose a sanction. Of course, the acceptance of the offer by Dr Smuts will place the matter beyond doubt. At the moment, no order is made in this matter and the SABC is permitted to remedy the omission. If this is not satisfactorily done, as set out above, the Tribunal will revisit the matter and decide whether a finding against the SABC is justified. At the moment this is left open, pending the steps taken by the SABC.
Note: the matter has now, 10 August, been addressed satisfactorily and the matter is regarded as settled (See Addendum).