The Society for the Protection of our Constitution (“SPOC”) filed a complaint with the Registrar 
against Radio Islam. The complaint was that the Respondent was propagating by means of broadcast the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures, and that this was undermining the Constitution, which gives a person the right to approach a Court. The response was that Mr Omar, on behalf of SPOC, had been afforded a reasonable opportunity to set out the successes of the Society in a broadcast on Radio Islam. However, Mr Omar, on behalf of SPOC complained that after that broadcast, an opportunity was granted to Moulana Bham to criticise what Mr Omar had said, and consequently the latter claimed a further opportunity to reply.
The Tribunal held that:
- The Complainant had not explained in which respects this alleged broadcast had given rise to the right to reply. No details of the broadcast were given – since, as appears from the complaint, the broadcast had not been heard by the Complainant or its representatives.
- Accordingly, the Complainant had not made out a case for such a right to reply.
The Complaint was, accordingly, not upheld.
It was mentioned by the Tribubal that there is nothing unlawful in propagating the view that alternative procedures for the resolution of disputes, including legal disputes, might be used. In fact, this is implicit in section 34 of the Constitution, which provides as follows: “Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum.” The suggestion that particular leeway should be given to alternative resolution of disputes – even outside section 34 of the Constitution – also emerges from the reasoning in Lufuno Mphaphuli & Assoc (Pty) Ltd v Andrews 2009 (4) SA 529 (CC). In this regard, see also the judgment of Van der Westhuizen J in Road Accident Fund and Another v Mdeyide 2011 (2) SA 26 (CC).