The proposed Media Tribunal

The African National Congress (ANC) first proposed that an independent Media Appeals Tribunal be implemented in the party’s 2007 Polokwane National Conference. Although the ANC’s descriptions of the role of such lacked reasoning, an online publication indicated that it was designed to strengthen and complement the self regulatory institutions that were already in place in the public interest. The proposed Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT) would “adjudicate complaints from citizens about media publications.” (http://allafrica.com/stories/201008030432.html) This would provide a legal platform where aggrieved persons could complain about the press’ coverage of particular issues. In essence, the MAT is a body that would give the ruling party the final say over what the press can publish. Numerous media responses, however, are strongly against the MAT because it limits the media’s liberties. An earlier version of the South African Press Code of Professional Practise states: “The freedom of the press to bring an independent scrutiny to bear on the forces that shape society is a freedom exercised on behalf of the public.” (http://www.sanef.org.za/programmes/ethics/publications/) In essence, the interest of media owners and journalists opposing the tribunal are in the wider public interest in helping to hold the powerful accountable. The trouble with this argument, however, is that the ANC also claims to be acting on behalf of the public in pushing for the tribunal. When the ANC looks at the media, it sees a reality that is quite different to the role of the press. Likewise, when the media looks at the MAT proposal, it is similarly sceptical about whether the ANC’s motives are honourable.

The press, it can be accepted, is somewhat further away from being in touch with the public interest than the ANC is. As an illustration, take the massive amount of reportage that missed the rise of President Jacob Zuma. Instead the media followed his Rape trial and his involvement in the Arms Deal. A MAT is essential in our media environment since it will serve to deter a minority of unprincipled journalists who abuse free speech rights. Those journalists that fabricate stories to destabilize democracy, damage the economy and harm South Africa’s international image. For example, the hysteria created before the World Cup following e.tv’s broadcast on the expected crime which damaged our economy. “FIFA had revised its projection of tourists downwards by over 30%.” (http://www.southafricalogue.com/travel-tips/violence-crime-and-the-2010-world-cup.html) This was an economic blow that can never fully be rectified since the damage to our international image has already affected. In a Political Reporting class discussion about the media’s reportage, I realised that to date any journalist who dared to acknowledge progress in service delivery and government performance went unnoticed. Ultimately, the ANC’s proposed MAT calls for journalism that reflects the country’s diversity and transformation. Journalists are synonymous with reporting badly or even wrongly on events. The media has also become ideological because some in the printed media do not agree with everything the ANC leaders do and say. In a heated Herald newspaper headline, Nceba Faku was quoted saying “Burn the Herald” following the papers administered support for the Democratic Alliance (DA). In a Constitutional Law blog, written by Pierre de Vos, Jacob Zuma is quoted saying: “The media must seriously conduct an introspection and open a constructive debate about the role of this institution in a post-apartheid South Africa. Is the media a mirror of South African society? Is it in touch with what the majority of South Africans feel and think? Does this institution actually know and understand South Africans?” (http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/would-media-appeals-tribunal-be-constitutional/) With Jacob Zuma’s quote into consideration “It is ironic that the media that place much emphasis on the ethical lapses of those they cover are themselves prone to insensitivity and feelings of grandiosity.” (http://allafrica.com/stories/201008030432.html) The media has become a scandalous platform to publish the wrong-doings of politicians and although this arguably necessary, it tramples on the politicians’ rights to human dignity. Lamp posts are regularly updated with headlines that tarnish those in power. The media circus has become increasingly out of control and forced the government to take the unfortunate but necessary step of a Media Appeals Tribunal. This is the only viable way to enforce journalists’ code of conduct. The ANC contends that the self-regulation is ineffective and takes too long to issue rulings. Rightfully speaking, the ANC has a responsibility to democratize every aspect of South African society which also includes the media. The MAT would be established through an open, public and transparent process and be made accountable to parliament.

“The media should be allowed to report on issues that erode human rights. Failure to guarantee media freedom creates fertile ground for autocracy, with those in power refusing to be accountable and responsible.” (http://cpj.org/blog/2010/08/in-south-africa-a-new-struggle-for-press-freedom.php) The role of the media in a democracy is not only limited to reporting and analysing specific events, but journalists are also opinion builders in their own right. The proposal of the MAT, limits the role and duty of journalists. Since the MAT will be headed by a body appointed by Parliament it will lose the independence of a self-regulatory body. The very essence of media freedom “hinges on the prohibition of state interference with the ideological content of what the media publishes” (http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/guyberger/2010/08/04/taking-the-anc-tribunal-at-face-value/) The ruling party has no power to interfere with the media to try and change the way it reports on what is happening in South Africa. In August 2010, Sunday Times journalist Mzilikazi Wa Afrika was arrested after he wrote an article which questioned the involvement of chief of police, General Bheki Cele in an irregular contract of R500 million. Wa Afrika was inexplicably whisked off by police to another province, who delayed informing his lawyers where he was being held or what he was being charged with. One of the main mandates of the MAT is to discipline “journalistic scoundrels” and evidently the idea is to silence the journalists that expose those in high places. For its part, the press sees the ANC’s proposals as coming from corrupt fat cats planning to close down criticism. Journalists generate news and views in cause of public service. The reality is that an atmosphere of intimidation towards journalists in South Africa is now becoming much more acute. An example of this is with cartoonist Jonathan Shapiro (known popularly as Zapiro) who was taken to court over his critical representations of Jacob Zuma although the South African Human Rights Commission ruled in favour of Zapiro saying that his cartoons expressed “free, open, robust and even unrestrained criticism of politicians by a journalist”. (http://www.royalafricansociety.org/component/content/article/699.html) The implementation of the MAT will only create a disinterested society because the public does not usually buy or read pro-government “good news” newspapers. The MAT is in fact a direct affront on the constitution. Chapter 2, section 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa: point 1 reads “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes (a) freedom of the press and other media…” The objectives of the proposed tribunal indicate an intention to violate the promotion of media freedom and freedom of expression. A campaign against the proposed MAT, called the Right to Speak is doing their best to fight for the rights of journalists. Ultimately, it is a sign of weakness when the ANC want to use force rather than persuasion to change what newspapers do. That is why the tribunal can and should be resisted.



Instead of posting articles of disapproval and discontentment for the proposed MAT, the media needs to engage with the ruling party. There are already a number of self-regulatory bodies which monitor the workings of the media, including the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council. On top of that, citizens who are misrepresented by the media may also find protection in South Africa’s defamation laws. Although the current system of self-regulation through an independent media has proved to be inadequate in terms of protecting the rights of individual citizens and enhancing the career of journalist, the ANC must strengthen these bodies instead of proposing a new self-regulatory body. The rate of transformation within the journalism sector has proceeded at a snail’s pace and this is reflected by the number of gifted journalists covering human interest-related stories. The ANC must outline their expectations from these bodies in order to create a win-win way. However, the ANC must not in any way limit the free speech rights of journalists.

Compiled By Andisiwe Mtengwane