A complaint was received from the Department of Correctional Services. It concerned extensive 
criticism that took place over a period of two consecutive days, despite clear corrective on-air statements by the Complainant’s spokesperson, in the wake of the retirement of the National Commissioner of Correctional Services who had turned sixty.
While the Correctional Services Act provides that employees in the service must retire at age sixty, the National Commissioner’s contract allowed for two additional years of service. The Chief State Law Adviser advised, however, that the National Commissioner nevertheless had to retire since this was required by existing legislation.
The Respondent, by way of one of its presenters, criticised this situation, arguing that it was ironic that the National Commissioner had to step down at age sixty, whilst the Minister, who was sixty-four years old, was not expected to step down. In on-air explanations by a representative of the Department, it was made clear that the Correctional Services Act provides that the Commissioner must retire at the age of sixty, and that the Act makes no exception, even in a case where a contract provides for a longer period of service. Ministers did not fall under the legislation but were in the Cabinet at the pleasure of the President. It was further explained that an employee who wishes to continue working after the age of sixty could, however, indicate willingness, six months before turning sixty, to stay on and that if certain procedures were then followed and approved, the employee could stay on after turning sixty. This was, however, not done by the Commissioner, who failed to notify the Department of his willingness to stay on.
In spite of the explanation the Respondent radio station continued its criticism and chose sides with the retired Commissioner.
The Tribunal held that, in spite of the fact that the law was clear on the matter, questions could nevertheless be asked by a broadcaster from a political or moral perspective as to why this was the situation. The lucid explanation provided by the spokesperson of the Department on more than one occasion, gave balance to the debate.
In so far as the Minister was the butt of ironic or, at the worst, sarcastic statements when comparisons were made between his age (64) and that of the retired National Commissioner (60), the Tribunal held that the commentary did not go beyond what was legally tolerable in regard to public figures, where even unjustified criticism has, in the circumstances, been regarded as reasonable by the Courts.
The Complaint was not upheld.