A complaint was received from the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God in South 
Africa ( “the Church”) that its reputation had been impaired owing to the use of visual inserts in the regular SABC3 discussion and investigation programme, Special Assignment.
The purpose of the programme was to report on churches and clergy who are involved in crimes such as money laundering and who are involved in the illegal drug trade. Neither the Complainant Church nor any of its clergy were mentioned by name in the programme, and no verbal link was drawn between the Church and the illegal conduct reported in the programme. However, a number of visual inserts showed recognisable premises of the Church that are used for worship, and the heart/dove symbol and name of the Church were clearly visible in at least one instance. The visual inserts identify the premises as those of the Church, among these being the Church premises in the Johannesburg CBD, as well as premises in Rosettenville.
Held that the inclusion of visuals of the Church clearly implied that its officials were also criminals, or that a suspicion of such conduct exists in regard to the Church. This prima facie amounted to defamation, unless it was the truth and it was in the public interest to reveal it, alternatively that it was reasonable to have included the visuals. The matter of truth was not part of the SABC3’s defence. SABC3 could also not show that the inclusion was reasonable.
Held that the visuals implied complicity in crime, and the producers of the programme should either have excluded the material or obtained a response from the Church. There was also no evidence that the Church had been or is involved in crime, and SABC3 should therefore have excluded the visuals.
Held, in the result, that the Church had been defamed. The defamation was not intentional. However, negligence suffices for a finding of defamation in so far as the media is concerned. In essence, SABC3 should have done more to ensure that also the visuals of the Church which the producers included in the programme were, indeed, related to criminal acts or alleged criminal acts. SABC3 had not been able to show that this was the case in regard to the Complainant. In fact, no attempt was made at the hearing to do so. The argument was simply that there was no intention to involve the Complainant. As indicated, however, absence of intention is not a defence.
A contravention of the Broadcasting Code was, accordingly, found and SABC3 directed to broadcast a correcting statement and a summary of the finding of the BCCSA, as set out at the end of the judgment.
CLICK TO VIEW FULL JUDGMENT case-no-31-2013