![The market-builder who restrained the market [Part 2]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/PHOTO-2026-08-25-17-16-32-360x180.jpg)
![The merchant preceding the Prophetic mission [Part 1]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/01-360x180.jpg)
![SABC dismisses call for transparency [+ video]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/bccsa-template.webp)
In an inquiry following a formal censure by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA), MAHMOOD SANGLAY argues that the SABC has descended from editorial failure into a state of systemic defiance.
The judgment against the SABC emanates from a complaint brought by Hassen Lorgat regarding the broadcaster’s unbalanced coverage of the genocide in Gaza and the interception of the global sumud flotilla. Developments following the BCCSA finding show that the SABC is increasingly at odds with its own statutory mandate, choosing to retreat into a shell of “internal processes” rather than face the transparency required by law and SABC’s official policy.
After publishing an analysis of the BCCSA finding Muslim Views engaged the SABC with some critical questions to ascertain how it intends to rectify these systemic biases. On February 23, Janet Whitton, an SABC Specialist Researcher, issues a curt response asserting “editorial independence” and stating that the SABC “will not share any internal processes that may take place with members of the public.”
There is no legal or ethical basis for the SABC’s refusal to be transparent. Despite this, Lorgat and his fellow complainants are seeking a meeting with the SABC to engage constructively with a view to enhance the broadcaster’s public service delivery.
The myth of private “internal processes”
The SABC’s primary defence—that its corrective actions are private “internal processes”—is not only irrational but legally contradictory. As a public broadcaster, the SABC is not a private enterprise. It is a creature of statute.
Under Section 6(4)(b) of the Broadcasting Act of 1999, the SABC is mandated to provide a “plurality of views and a variety of news, information and analysis from a South African perspective.” Furthermore, the SABC editorial policy itself states that “principles of honesty, openness and transparency govern every aspect of its relationships with… the public.” By refusing to share how it will ensure balance in future Palestinian coverage, the SABC is effectively violating its own policy of “openness.”
The BCCSA finding was a public indictment of a public failure. Therefore, the remedy cannot be shrouded in secrecy. When a statutory body finds an infringement of the code, the “internal processes” used to fix that breach become matters of paramount public interest. To hide behind “editorial independence” to avoid answering for a found bias is a perverse misapplication of the concept. Independence is meant to protect the broadcaster from state interference, not to insulate it from public accountability.
Failure to live up to public responsibilities
The SABC’s refusal to engage with the questions posed by Muslim Views highlights a broader failure to adhere to the BCCSA Code of Conduct. Clause 13.1 requires that news be presented in “correct context.” The BCCSA specifically found that the SABC failed to provide this context by platforming Israeli embassy officials while sidelining the activists who were the victims of the flotilla interception.
You may also want to read
This is a direct abdication of constitutional and statutory obligations. Section 6(7) of the Broadcasting Act Charter requires the SABC to provide “suitable means for regular inputs of public opinion… and ensure that such opinion is given due consideration.” By dismissing a news organisation that represents a significant portion of its constituency, the SABC further fails to give “due consideration” to public concern regarding its role in the erasure of Palestinian suffering.
Furthermore, the SABC’s response to the BCCSA reprimand was tellingly dismissive. In her email, Janet Whitton noted that “no sanctions were applied.” This suggests an institutional culture that only values compliance when faced with sanctions, ignoring the moral and ethical gravity of a formal censure. A reprimand for imbalanced reporting on a genocide is a serious stain on a public broadcaster’s record, yet it appears the SABC treats it as a minor administrative hurdle.
Statutory obligations vs institutional reticence
The SABC’s stance is further undermined by its own editorial policy, which commits the broadcaster to “highest standards of journalism,” specifically citing “fairness, unbiased coverage, impartiality, and balance.” If the broadcaster’s internal processes were indeed robust, it would have no reason to hide them. A transparent institution would proudly detail the new research protocols, the training of presenters, and the “right of reply” mechanisms being implemented to prevent a recurrence of the breach in Lorgat vs the SABC.
Instead, the SABC’s reticence suggests that no such robust processes exist. It suggests that the “in-studio” privileges afforded to pro-Zionist state representatives will remain unchallenged, and that the broadcaster will continue to use “both-sideism” as a shield for inaccuracy.
We must note that the SABC that it is governed by the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) and the Broadcasting Act, both of which prioritise the public’s right to know over a broadcaster’s inclination to secrecy.
The SABC’s current position is irrational because it claims to be “independent” while simultaneously refusing to demonstrate the ethical rigour that justifies such independence. If the SABC wishes to regain the trust of the South African public, it must move beyond the dismissive rhetoric of Janet Whitton and provide substantive answers to the questions of how it will reform its newsroom.
The struggle for media accountability in South Africa did not end with the BCCSA judgment. It merely entered a new phase. As long as the SABC views public inquiry as an intrusion rather than a mandate, it remains a broadcaster in name, but a state-adjacent echo chamber in practice. The internal processes of a public broadcaster are public property, especially when they concern the integrity of our national discourse on human rights and social justice.
