The Complainant argued that the use of the term “Islamist militants” in a news item is unacceptable 
and cannot in any circumstances be justified. Islam itself is a non-violent religion, and it is not only offensive but also incorrect to use the phrase, where the two terms are used as if they are synonymous. The SABC apologised for the error on the basis that it had no justification for using the offending phrase in the news report. The Complainant, however, argued that there can never be a justification for combining the notion of violence with Islam, since this implies that these terms are synonymous or related.
The Tribunal held that if a solid factual basis exists for such a term, it may be used. It reasoned as follows: It would be unwise, and also in conflict with the need to take context into account, to categorically ban the use of certain words or phrases. Each case must be decided on its own merits, and words have different meanings in different contexts. If the SABC or another broadcaster is able to show convincingly that criminal acts are linked to members of a certain religion, and that the deeds were committed in the name of that religion – albeit under a misconceived notion of that religion – it would be permissible to broadcast a phrase that makes a connection between violence and that religion. Care should, however, be taken not to generalise, and if any doubt exists, a broadcaster should refrain from using a phrase in which these terms are combined.
The complaint was upheld. No sanction was, however, imposed since the SABC apologised for the error, took disciplinary steps, and undertook to ensure that there would be no repetition of the error.