The Registrar received a complaint concerning a broadcast by the respondent broadcaster in which 
the complainant averred that disrespect was shown to the His Majesty, Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu. An on-air phone-in discussion related to what the King had, according to the presenter, said in a public speech the previous day regarding gay relationships.
The Tribunal said the following by way of introduction:
The presenter, by way of inferential reasoning, concluded that the King had indeed made certain statements, and she accordingly based her approach, and responses she made during the programme, on this inference. Although the Commission has, time and again, repeated and applied the constitutional right of freedom of expression, it should be borne in mind that a broadcaster also has a duty to base its opinions on a matter of public importance on facts truly stated or fairly indicated and referred to, in accordance with clause 12 of the Code.
The Tribunal regards the presenter’s concluding that gay relationships had indeed been attacked by the king, as being the consequence of questionable inferential reasoning. It is the Tribunal’s view that the production team should, at the very least, have attempted to contact a spokesperson from the king’s administration to enlighten the listeners as to what had in fact been said. However, no such attempt was made.
The Tribunal held that our law does not afford cultural leaders greater protection than ordinary members of the community. The crime of crimen laesae venerationis has been held by the Appellate Division as either being in conflict with freedom of expression, or as never in any case having been part of the Roman Dutch Law which became our common law.
The Tribunal finally concluded as follows:
Mr Buthelezi’s complaint goes beyond impairment of the dignity of the king, since the complaint included absence of balance and the right to reply. The basic problem that the Tribunal has with this complaint nevertheless remains the fact that, despite our criticism regarding the unjustified ease with which the presenter drew certain inferences based upon the king’s utterances, the Tribunal still does not know what the king in fact said. Neither Mr Buthelezi nor the Respondent broadcaster has provided the Tribunal with any evidence as to what the king said. It would be hazardous for this Tribunal to come to a conclusion on the meagre facts before it.
Even the inclusion of clauses 12 and 13 in the complaint are closely related to the king. Clause 12 requires that the opinion expressed must reasonably relate to the facts – which, once again, as is the case with the cause of action based on iniuria, confronts the Tribunal with the question as to what the king had indeed said. Moreover, clause 13 relates to the right of reply of the king – once again, a matter which the king himself should raise, if indeed the king wished or wishes to do so.
In the result the Tribunal decided that, given the very personal manner in which the king is involved in this matter, the Complainant did not have locus standi to file this complaint.
The matter was removed from the roll and the matter not decided.