The essential question in this matter was whether, in the opinion of the Tribunal, a 
second apology by the broadcaster had been satisfactory in addressing the offence caused to Rastafarians when their deity was treated with disrespect by the Respondent broadcaster. The Complainant was, justifiably, not prepared to accept the first apology as broadcast since it was done in the Rastafarian argot, which is not the usual language used by the broadcaster, and instead amounted to a repetition of the style used in the original broadcast. The second apology was, however, in ordinary South African English. This apology was not accepted by the Complainant either, since, in his view, it was not “heartfelt”.
The Tribunal stated as follows:
“We are of the view that, although generally it is probably impossible to remove all hurt by way of an apology, the second apology by the Respondent is as “heartfelt” as one may get. It was, in our view, not merely a tactical gimmick. Accordingly, despite the view that the second apology was not “heartfelt” – which is usually, in any case, impossible to establish – the second apology in this matter came across as a genuine apology. At least it was said to be “wholehearted”. The basis for the complaint has fallen away as a consequence of the apology of the Respondent. The second apology consequently removed the possibility of a contravention of the Code even before the matter came before us.”
The matter was removed from the Roll of the BCCSA.