The Inkatha Freedom Party (“IFP”) is a registered political party that is taking part in the South 
African municipal elections, which are to be held on 18 May 2011. On Saturday 2 April 2011, following the launch of IFP’s Local Government Manifesto at Lindelani in the Durban area, an eNews reporter commented as follows during a two-minute-long coverage of the launch: “The IFP has pulled out all the stops for the launch of its national election manifesto, but it failed to pull the crowd of 20 000 it had planned for. And judging by Buthelezi’s address the IFP considers the ruling party to be its biggest rival here in KwaZulu-Natal”. A complaint was lodged with the BCCSA by the IFP in terms of clause 11 of the Broadcasting Code that the statement was “erroneous and deprived of any fact. The IFP never publicly stated how many people it was expecting at its launch. By presenting news to its viewers that was factually incorrect, e-tv has failed in its duty of presenting the news truthfully, accurately and in a balanced manner. If the report was based on the opinion of one person, it should have been presented in such manner and it should have been stated clearly, which was not the case. The false statement was presented as fact. The IFP believes that the news report was misleading, biased and created a negative perception of the IFP’s launch as a failure, when in fact the opposite was true.” E-tv denied that the Code had been contravened. The information had been provided to its journalist by an unnamed, senior official of the IFP. The latter statement was accepted, on behalf of the IFP, by the IFP’s legal representative at the hearing of the matter. E-tv argued that the complaint had an air of frivolity to it within the context of the two-minute coverage, in which the IFP’s criticism against the ANC, the Independent Election Commission and a breakaway group were, inter alia, covered.
The Tribunal held:
that it did have jurisdiction in the present matter, since the complaint did not concern a matter governed by sections 56, 57 or 58 of the Electronic Communications Act (“ECA”). If the matter had fallen within the scope of any one of these sections, the Complaints and Compliance Committee of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa would have had jurisdiction during the election period as defined in the ECA. The BCCSA may, however, only apply the Broadcasting Code and not sections of the ECA. The complaint was addressed within the ambit of clause 11 of the Broadcasting Code and did not fall within the scope of any of the three sections of the ECA.
that the complaint was not frivolous. The actual number of people attending a launch when compared with a political party’s expectations as to numbers is clearly likely to impact on viewers’ perceptions regarding the strength of the support of the party.
that e-tv had contravened clause 11 of the Broadcasting Code in stating as a fact what the expectations of the IFP were, without granting the IFP Media Officer or the IFP National Organiser an opportunity to react to the statement. In any case, e-tv should also have stated the information within the correct context, namely, that a senior official had informed the journalist that the expectation had been that 20 000 people would attend.
that regarding sanction, it would be counter-productive to order e-tv to broadcast a correction. The context would be lost on the viewer, and the repetition of the matter might even be detrimental to the IFP. The IFP would, of course, be free to publish the outcome of this judgment. The Registrar of the BCCSA would also publish this judgment in the ordinary course of events.
that since the journalist had, in the view of the Tribunal, been bona fide in her endeavours to cover the event, it would not be appropriate to impose a sanction against e-tv.