Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

SABC v Sunday Times / TimesLive

, , ,

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint number:  000582

Author: Kgothatso Madisa

Headlines of articles: ANC muscles SABC to axe ‘harsh’ show (Sunday Times, print edition)

: Too hot to handle: ANC muscles SABC to axe ‘harsh’ show (TimesLive, online edition)

: Canned SABC talk show drew ‘millions’ of viewers (TimesLive, online edition)

Headline of Digital Poster: SABC AXES SHOW ‘AFTER PRESIDENCY, ANC PROTEST’

Publication Date: 22 March 2026

Date lodged: 20 April 2026

Links to stories: https://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2026-03-21-too-hot-to-handle-anc-muscles-sabc-to-axe-harsh-show/

: https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/2026-03-22-canned-sabc-talk-show-drew-millions-of-viewers/

Particulars

  1. This finding is based on correspondence by Themba Gwejela, Group Executive: Corporate Affairs of the SABC (on behalf of the Corporation), and by Robin Wheatley, legal advisor to Arena Holdings Prop. Ltd.

The articles

  1. The gist of the articles is the allegation that the SABC has decided not to renew the talk show Face the Nation at the end of March due to political pressure – “apparently because top ANC politicians object to its tough questions”.
  2. The host of the hour-long show, Clement Manyathela, confirmed that his show would not be renewed when its contract lapsed – “a move that raises questions about ANC and government influence on the public broadcaster, which is nominally independent of political interference”.
  3. Manyathela reportedly said he was told that the SABC could no longer afford the show.
  4. However, sources said that the Presidency and Luthuli House had been unhappy with the show for some time. The final straw appeared to have been an interview with Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya in January. The host asked the latter why Pres Cyril Ramaphosa had not made the Madlanga commission’s interim report public and why he only suspended Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, instead of firing him.
  5. Several sources within the SABC reportedly told Sunday Times that “they were shocked when the announcement to cancel the show was made, because it was doing well and was a flagship programme that drew ‘millions’ of viewers”.
  6. The newly appointed head of news, Deidre (“Dee”) Uren, “is said to have been under sustained pressure, particularly from the Presidency”, which led to her decision not to renew the show.
  7. Uren reportedly denied this accusation.

The complaint

The gist of the complaint

  1. The complaint centres around the allegation that pressure from the ANC has led to the SABC’s decision not to renew the show, Face the Nation – an allegation which the SABC vehemently disputes.
  2. The SABC denies that its decision to discontinue the show was politically motivated and submits that it was inter alia because of “underperformance against set targets, a high-cost structure, weak competitive positioning, pre-emptions, and inefficiencies”.
  3. Gwejela maintains that the decision was taken independent of any political interference and was guided strictly by internal editorial independence and strategic and performance criteria.
  4. He submits that the narrative that the SABC’s editorial decisions are subject to political interference “strikes at the heart of the Corporation’s credibility and misleads and undermines the trust of its audiences” – the SABC must be independent and impartial to gain and maintain the trust of the public, he maintains.

The complaint in more detail

In breach of Clause 1.1 of the Code: “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly.”

  1. The SABC says the claim that Executive Producers at the SABC decide whether a show should be cancelled is factually incorrect — decisions of that nature are taken at a significantly higher level.
  2. The implication that Face the Nation was a high-performing “flagship” programme, when in fact BRC TAMS data demonstrates that it averaged 121,000 viewers (which is materially below the channel’s prime-time benchmark), is incorrect.

In breach of Clause 1.2 of the Code

It reads, “The media shall present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions or summarisation.”

  1. Gwejela submits that the journalist failed to present news in context and in a balanced manner. In the print edition, “the SABC’s detailed denials were buried on page 2, while the sensationalist and unsubstantiated allegations of unnamed sources were afforded front-page prominence,” he says.
  2. Moreover, information contained in the SABC’s media releases of 22 and 24 March 2026, which included independently verifiable viewership data, was not reflected in any subsequent TimesLive

In breach of Clause 1.3 of the Code

It says, “… opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such.”

  1. The complaint is that statements, despite some being presented as allegations, have caused unnecessary harm to the SABC and therefore should not have been published.

In breach of Clause 1.7 of the Code

It reads, “The media shall verify the accuracy of doubtful information, if practicable; if not, this shall be stated.”

  1. The SABC complains that the publications relied on information from anonymous sources, but that they did not verify it independently with the SABC itself.

In breach of Clause 1.8 of the Code

This clause states that the subject of critical reporting “should be afforded reasonable time to respond”.

  1. Gwejela says that the SABC was afforded the opportunity to respond to initial questions sent at 10:21 on Saturday, 21 March 2026, and did so again at 12:30 the same day.
  2. However, at 17:59 that day follow-up questions were sent – shortly before the publication’s deadline. This did not afford the Corporation sufficient time to prepare responses, he submits.

In breach of Clause 1.9 and 1.11 of the Code

Clause 1.9: “The media shall state where a report is based on limited information, and supplement it once new information becomes available”; and Clause1.11: “The media shall prominently indicate when content that was published online has been amended…”

  1. The SABC says that, at no point did the articles disclose that the reportage was based on limited information.
  2. Given its public statements on 22 and 24 March 2026, which included detailed viewership data and a thorough explanation of the decision-making process, the publications did not attempt to update the online version “to include the critical information that would have materially changed both the story and the headline, or to thereafter indicate that the Articles had been amended in light of new information coming to light”.

In breach of Clause 10.1 of the Code

It reads, “Headlines … shall not mislead the public and shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report … in question.”

  1. Gwejela submits that the headline of the printed edition presented uncorroborated the allegation of political interference as an established fact, rather than clearly identifying it as allegation from unnamed and unverified sources.
  2. He adds that the references to “canned SABC” and “millions” of viewers in the online headline were published after the SABC had explicitly denied external interference and had stated clearly that unfavourable viewership figures were the principal reason for its decision.
  3. Gwejela also submits that the digital billboard “extends the reach of the false narrative even further”.
  4. The above were misleading, unnecessary, and damaging to the SABC’s reputation, he concludes.

In breach of Clause 11.2 of the Code

It states, “The media shall avoid the use of anonymous sources unless there is no other way to deal with a story, and shall take care to corroborate such information.”

  1. The SABC complains that the publications made use of anonymous sources whose motives were unclear and whose information was not independently corroborated. This, the Corporation says, has led to slanted, misleading, and factually inaccurate reporting.

Relief sought

  1. The SABC asks for a published apology:

a. in its print edition, acknowledging the factual inaccuracies and the reputational harm caused, which should be published with equal prominence to the original offending article (read: on the front page of the Sunday Times);

b. on its online and social media platforms. This should be placed below the headline on all online and social media versions of the articles, together with a statement that the articles have been amended and corrected, in compliance with Section 1.11 of the Press Code; and

c. on its digital billboard/posters.

29. In addition, the Corporation asks for a:

a. retraction, a correction and an update on all platforms where the articles appeared. This should include the independently verified BRC TAMS viewership figures[1] and should give fair and prominent weight to the SABC’s responses and denials; and

b. correction of the headlines, offering a true and fair reflection of the facts.

Reply to the complaint

Anonymous sources

  1. Arena has offered to disclose its sources to me on condition that I do not disclose their identities.

The construction of the articles

  1. Wheatley says Madisa spoke to many sources, also on condition of anonymity. Certain calls were recorded and these recordings are similarly tendered to me, again on condition of confidentiality.
  2. He says the investigation commenced on 17 March 2026 when Madisa was contacted by Source A, who was relatively close to the programme. This source indicated that the cancellation of the programme was unexpected, given prior positive feedback from SABC management regarding its performance. This source also alleged that, notwithstanding performance considerations, the decision not to proceed with the programme was influenced by sustained political pressure emanating from Luthuli House and the Presidency.
  3. Madisa then requested documentary evidence, including communication with SABC management, before proceeding any further.
  4. On March 18, the journalist contacted a separate, independent source within the SABC’s management structure. Source A1 confirmed the substance of the allegations and indicated that the issue of political influence was more extensive than initially thought. This source further suggested that the Minister in the Presidency was centrally implicated. This inter alia related to an interview on the show with Presidency spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, in January.
  5. The next day, Source A provided screenshots of his/her communications with senior SABC personnel, as well as with Source B and Source C (a former employee of the SABC). The messages between Source B and Source A indicated that there was an “irritation in the ANC” after the show and about how the government official was seemingly treated.
  6. The messages further indicated that “Luthuli House” attempted to exert some pressure on Source B vis-à-vis the programme.
  7. Wheatley submits that, from the exchange between Source A and Source C, it is evident that, at the time of exchanging the messages, the SABC management was satisfied with the performance of the programme. This has caused Madisa to question the apparent roundabout turn by the SABC.
  8. On March 20, Madisa engaged directly with Magwenya. The latter denied any knowledge of political interference and referred to the financial challenge with which the SABC was faced. This was reported in the article.
  9. Later that day, the reporter telephonically interviewed the Minister in the Presidency, Khumbudzo Ntshavheni. She denied political interference but confirmed several material facts relevant to the investigation, including that:

a. she had a personal issue with Manyathela and that she had refused to appear on the programme;

b. she had, on multiple occasions, directly contacted the chairperson of the SABC Board to complain about the programme;

c. government had intervened in relation to SABC funding; and

d. there were broader tensions between political actors and the SABC’s editorial approach.

40. Wheatley admits that these admissions did not confirm the allegation of interference – but he argues that it did provide significant contextual evidence of direct engagement between political actors and SABC leadership.

41 . Madisa then received additional corroborative material in the form of a recording of a discussion between Source A and Source D. In that recording, Source D described tensions between Ntshavheni and Manyathela, including dissatisfaction arising from a prior interview with the President, and referred to a “hard attitude” toward the programme. “This constituted further independent corroboration from outside the SABC,” Wheatley submits.

42. Later that same day, Madisa contacted another person within the SABC, Source E, who confirmed that:

a. the programme had been performing well and that management had expressed satisfaction;

 b. the cancellation was presented internally as financially motivated;

c. there had been increasing difficulty in securing interviews with ANC leadership; and

d. certain political figures, including the Minister, had refused to participate in the programme.

43. On the evening of March 20, Madisa further engaged Source C, who said that the decision had been communicated by senior leadership in an unusual manner. The source further indicated that management had been satisfied with the programme’s performance.

44. The next day, Madisa re-engaged Magwenya for a formal response on behalf of the Presidency. The latter reiterated the denial of political interference and advanced an alternative explanation that the programme had been cancelled due to low viewership and cost considerations. This response was reported in the article.

Right of reply; reasonable time to respond

  1. Arena denies that it has denied the SABC a reasonable right of reply.
  2. Wheatley says the SABC was initially contacted on 21 March 2026 between 08:00 and 09:00. With no response forthcoming, the request was forwarded to the Presidential spokesperson at approximately 10:21. The SABC furnished a substantive response at approximately 12:30 on the same day. The SABC’s denial and explanation were incorporated into the impugned article.
  3. The legal advisor says that, contrary to the suggestion that extensive or materially new allegations were introduced at the eleventh hour, only one additional line of enquiry was pursued after the initial response, namely a request for information relating to the programme’s viewership figures. That supplementary query arose directly from the SABC’s own assertion that the cancellation decision was materially based on poor performance and low viewership. “In those circumstances, Madisa was plainly entitled, and indeed professionally obliged, to seek the underlying factual basis for that assertion before publication,” he argues.
  4. Moreover, he continues, the SABC did not indicate that it required additional time to furnish the relevant viewership data, nor did it provide any substantive explanation for its inability to do so.
  5. Wheatley points out that the Press Code requires a reasonable opportunity to respond, not an unlimited period of engagement or publication only once all conceivable internal consultations have been completed.
  6. “The SABC had already furnished its principal denial and explanation, which were reflected in the reporting. The supplementary question did not deprive the SABC of its right of reply, rather, it was a question they seemingly chose to ignore.”
  7. Moreover, he continues, the urgency of the story was justified by public interest. “The cancellation of a public affairs programme amid allegations of political pressure constituted a matter of immediate national relevance. In those circumstances, the publication was entitled to proceed once reasonable verification had occurred and the principal implicated parties had been afforded an opportunity to respond,” he concludes.

The headlines

The first headline: ANC muscles SABC to axe ‘harsh’ show

  1. Wheatley says the complaint must not be assessed in isolation, but in the context of the evidence available to the reporter at the time of publication and the content of the impugned article as a whole.
  2. At the time when the headline was formulated, the reporter had before him a body of evidence that extended beyond a single allegation.
  3. This evidence included:

a. the account of Source A and Source A1;

b. confirmation from an independent SABC management source; and

c. documentary corroboration in the form of internal communications with senior SABC personnel, which supported aspects of the narrative.

55. In addition, Madisa had engaged directly with the Presidency spokesperson and the Minister in the Presidency, whose responses, while denying interference, disclosed a pattern of direct engagement with SABC leadership on editorial matters.

56. When viewed cumulatively, this evidentiary matrix was sufficient to justify a headline that conveyed the thrust of the allegations being reported, namely that there was perceived political pressure influencing the decision to cancel the programme. The headline did not emerge from speculation or a single untested source, it was grounded in multiple corroborated accounts pointing in the same direction, which is a critical factor recognised in both the Press Code and in Decoding the Code.

57 Section 10.1 of the Press Code requires headlines to give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report. In this case, the article dealt with allegations of political pressure on the SABC, juxtaposed with denials by the SABC and government representatives. The headline reflects that central theme. It does not introduce a new or unrelated assertion – it encapsulates the core issue explored in the article.

58. The legal advisor says, “The body of the article makes it clear that the alleged interference is contested and attributed to sources. A reasonable reader, reading the headline together with the article, would understand that the statement reflects the substance of the allegations under investigation, not a judicial finding of fact.”

59. He argues that headlines, by their nature, are designed to capture attention and convey the essence of a story. “In matters of public importance, a headline that reflects the seriousness of the allegations, provided it is grounded in evidence and supported by the article, does not in itself constitute a breach of the Code,” he submits.

60. Wheatley concludes that the headline complained of was justified by the evidence, reasonably reflective of the contents of the article, and consistent with applicable Press Council principles.

The second headline: Canned SABC talk show drew ‘millions’ of viewers

  1. The SABC has revealed audience figures from the BRC TAMS. However, Wheatley points out, the TV medium is not the only platform where the programme is viewed – it is also available on YouTube. A total of 214 episodes of the programme is available on that platform.
  2. For instance, the episode of 17 September 2024, when Manyathela interviewed the EFF leader, Julius Malema, that episode has been viewed 1.5 million times on YouTube. “Collectively, our reasonable calculation is that the Programme … has over 4 million YouTube views,” the legal advisor says. “The Programme accordingly did draw ‘millions of viewers’.”
  3. He concludes that the headlines adhere to the requirements of the Press Code. They were not misleading and that they reasonably reflect the contents of the reportage.
  4. The same applies to the digital billboard, the legal advisor adds.

Anonymous sources

  1. Arena says its reportage did not rely merely on anonymous sources – a thorough investigative process was undertaken prior to publication. Madisa made use of multiple independent sources, documentary corroboration, direct communications with senior SABC personnel, and engagement with both the Presidency spokesperson and the Minister in the Presidency.
  2. “In addition, screenshots of contemporaneous communications between senior SABC officials and Source A materially corroborated the allegation that there was discomfort within ANC and Presidency circles concerning the Programme and its editorial approach,” Wheatley adds.
  3. He submits that the article did not state as fact that Executive Producers formally possess the authority to cancel programmes, as argued by the SABC. “In any event, the central issue in the reporting was not the formal governance mechanics of programme cancellation, but whether political pressure influenced the ultimate decision-making environment,” he argues.
  4. Wheatley concludes: “The publication did not simply accept information from anonymous sources uncritically. Rather, Madisa interrogated those claims, sought corroboration from multiple independent persons, obtained documentary material, tested the allegations against implicated parties, and included denials from the SABC and government representatives in the impugned article. That is precisely the form of responsible investigative journalism contemplated by clauses 1.1 and 1.7 of the Press Code.”

Context, balance

  1. Arena denies that the reportage:

a. lacked context or balance – it recorded the SABC’s denial that political interference played any role in the cancellation of the programme and included the SABC’s explanation that the decision was motivated by performance, cost, and strategic considerations. The Presidency spokesperson and the Minister in the Presidency were likewise quoted denying interference; and

b. suppressed the SABC’s subsequent statements of 22 and 24 March 2026. “Those statements largely reiterated the same position already communicated to Madisa prior to publication.”

70. Whatley emphasises that the Press Code does not require a publication to repeatedly republish a party’s denials merely because that party restates them in greater detail after publication. “Nor does balance require equal weight to be afforded to every competing version. The requirement is fairness and adequate context, both of which were satisfied,” he concludes.

Allegations presented as facts

  1. Arena says the SABC’s contention that the reportage improperly presented allegations as established fact “disregards both the content and structure of the reporting” – it repeatedly attributed the allegations to sources, framed them as claims or concerns arising from within and around the SABC, and juxtaposed them against express denials from the SABC and government representatives. Reasonable readers “would plainly understand that the impugned article were reporting on a contested factual dispute rather than purporting to make definitive factual findings.”
  2. Wheatley concludes: “Importantly, the impugned article did not purport to determine conclusively that political interference had in fact occurred. Rather, they reported that there were credible allegations, supported by multiple sources and contextual evidence, that political pressure may have influenced the decision. That is a materially different proposition from presenting unverified allegations as incontrovertible fact.”

Based on limited information

  1. Arena says the complaint regarding Sections 1.9 and 1.11 of the Press Code lacks merit, as the reportage was not based on limited information. “By the time of publication, Madisa had obtained multiple corroborating sources, documentary evidence, and direct responses from implicated parties. The reporting was therefore not provisional or speculative in nature.”
  2. Moreover, the SABC’s later press releases of 22 and 24 March 2026 did not fundamentally alter the factual position that existed at the time of publication. Therefore, there was no obligation under Section 1.11 of the Code to materially amend or retract the reporting. “The Press Code does not require publications to update (an) impugned article each time a subject restates its denial or expands upon previously communicated positions. The relevant question is whether materially new information emerged which fundamentally undermined the factual basis of the reporting. That did not occur in this instance,” Wheatley argues.

Conclusion

  1. Arena denies that its reportage is in breach of the Press Code. It says the reporting concerned a matter of clear public interest, it is accurate, it came from multiple sources whose information was corroborated by independent sources and supported by documentary material, as well as comment by the SABC and relevant government actors that were included in the article.
  2. “The Press Code does not require certainty before publication, but reasonable steps to verify information and fair presentation of competing versions, both of which were satisfied in this instance,” Wheatley argues.
  3. The SABC’s later statements of 22 and 24 March 2026 did not fundamentally alter or disprove the factual basis underlying the reporting. Those statements largely reiterated the same denial and explanation already obtained by the publication prior to publication of the impugned article. The Press Code does not oblige publications to amend, or update reports each time a subject party restates its position or provides further elaboration on an existing denial.
  4. Arena accordingly submits that the complaint ought to be dismissed in its entirety and that no corrective or punitive relief ought to be granted.

Rejoinder

  1. The SABC’s response to Arena’s reply to the complaint mainly reiterates its arguments as proffered in the complaint. The crux thereof is that the:

a. reportage presented serious, disputed allegations of political interference as if they were established facts;

b. articles relied extensively on anonymous sources without proper verification with primary sources and without satisfying the “no other way” threshold;

c. primary source (read: the SABC) was not afforded with a reasonable right of reply proportionate to the scope and seriousness of the accusations;

d. articles in print and online were not supplemented or transparently updated after the SABC placed on record detailed, independently verifiable information; and

e. headlines turned allegations into facts.

80. Of special importance is the argument that Madisa considered material facts out of context and thus misunderstood them to provide “significant contextual evidence of direct engagement between political actors and the SABC leadership”.

81.  The SABC says it supports the principal of the protection of confidential journalistic sources as an integral component of media freedom and investigative journalism in a democratic society.

82. Accordingly, the SABC does not demand to know the names or specific job titles of the confidential journalistic sources, and welcomes the proposed confidentiality regime, so long as the:

a. confidential journalistic sources relied upon are credible;

b. respective inherent bias of each source be recorded and put in context for me; and

c. information provided by the confidential journalistic sources was obtained legally, is treated with due care, corroborated and verified in accordance with the Press Code, and is considered in context for purposes of the evidence being tested by me as being hearsay or fact.

83.  The SABC questions Arena’s contention that its journalist has conducted a sufficient investigative process based on multiple confidential, independent and corroborating sources. The Corporation submits that on a proper analysis of the sources relied upon, “such sources are inadequately identified, insufficiently qualified, uncorroborated and/or fall short of the standards required by … the Press Code.”

84. The SABC denies that the confidential anonymous sources relied upon in the articles “were of sufficient standing, independence, and reliability to justify the publication of the serious allegations contained in the impugned articles, and whether those sources were subjected to the degree of scrutiny and verification demanded by responsible journalism in terms of the Press Code”.

85. The SABC then questions the validity of each of the sources, tested against the above-mentioned criteria. Its main conclusion is that references to those sources were vague and without any indication of their position, authority or knowledge of the non-renewal of the programme. Moreover, some information appears to have been based on hearsay or speculation, rather than first-hand knowledge, while others could be biased or acting out of personal grievances.

Analysis

Disclaimer

  1. References were made in the correspondence at my disposal to the SABC’s independence, or lack thereof, some years ago. Let me be clear on this issue: this office cannot investigate the nature of the relationship between the SABC and the ANC – our only mandate is to adjudicate possible breaches of the Press Code by members of the Press Council who adhere to it.
  2. I have therefore ignored those references.

Political interference?

  1. The central question is if the publications were justified to report or to insinuate that the ANC had influenced the SABC’s decision not to renew the programme, Face the Nation.
  2. I have carefully perused both articles and can confidently say that nowhere is it stated as a fact in the body of those articles that the decision not to renew the programme had been influenced by the ANC. Every statement is either directly attributed to a source or clearly presented as an allegation.
  3. The SABC argues that officials who were not satisfied with the programme, raised their concerns not as members of the ANC, but in their capacity as members of government. The same goes for the office of the Presidency. That may be so, but the allegations made by sources specifically and consistently put the blame for this on the shoulders of the ANC.
  4. I shall deal with the headlines separately.
  5. Having established the above, the focus now shifts to the question of how reliable, independent, credible and knowledgeable the sources were. For such a serious allegation to be published, Sunday Times surely must have made use of senior, reliable and credible sources. That speaks for itself.

The sources

  1. I appreciate that Arena has disclosed the names and positions of the sources to me to satisfy me as to their existence, reliability, independence and credibility – that, of course, in the strictest of confidence.
  2. I have also:

a. listened to recordings of conversations – in total, more than half an hour; and

b. read a few relevant WhatsApp messages.

95. Regarding the SABC’s concern that the references to the sources in the story were vague: that, I believe, was deliberately done – not because the sources were questionable, but because of fear that they could be identified.

96. The same goes for me – the less I say about the sources, the better. I hope that the SABC trust me on this issue – I am satisfied that the sources used by Sunday Times were sufficiently senior and credible enough to have based its reportage on their information.

97. With respect, I find the SABC’s denial that the confidential anonymous sources relied upon in the articles “were of sufficient standing, independence, and reliability to justify the publication of the serious allegations contained in the impugned articles, and whether those sources were subjected to the degree of scrutiny and verification demanded by responsible journalism in terms of the Press Code” quite bizarre – for how could the Corporation come to such a conclusion if the sources were anonymous?

98. To avoid any possible misunderstanding: I am not finding that the SABC was influenced from outside with regards to the non-renewal of Face the Nation. This adjudication is about one issue, and one issue only – the newspaper’s right to have published the allegations as allegations, given the credibility of its sources and the huge public interest in this matter. I am not mandated to decide whether those allegations are true or not, and neither do I want to do so. That is not for me or my office to decide.

Insufficient, independent verification

  1. The complaint is that, while the SABC was given the opportunity to respond to initial questions (sent at 10:21 on Saturday, 21 March 2026, and did so again at 12:30 the same day), it did not have enough time to respond to follow-up questions that were sent later that day (at 17:59).
  2. I take into consideration Arena’s arguments that the:

a. SABC was initially contacted on 21 March 2026 between 08:00 and 09:00. As there was no response, the request was forwarded to the Presidential spokesperson at approximately 10:21. The SABC responded at approximately 12:30 on the same day (which was reported in the article);

b. enquiry sent at 17:59 contained only one new aspect – a request for information relating to the programme’s viewership figures; and

c. SABC did not indicate that it required additional time to furnish the relevant viewership data.

101. With these data at my disposal, I believe that the newspaper did afford the SABC a reasonable time to respond, as required by Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.

Media statements

  1. The SABC issued a rather detailed series of media statements on 22 and 24 March 2026 to explain its decision not to recommission Face the Nation and to address allegations of external or political influence – emphasizing that the decision was made independently and in line with standard broadcasting practice.
  2. In summary, the SABC says that its decision not to renew Face the Nation resulted from routine programming reviews, performance and cost considerations, and broader strategic objectives, rather than from political or external interference.
  3. The question is if Sunday Times was under an obligation to publish the content of those media releases (which it did not do).
  4. The crux of this question is whether those releases contain any new information which is substantial to the case.
  5. I have carefully read the SABC’s written response on March 21 and have compared it to its additional statements on March 22 and March 24.
  6. I disagree with Wheatly’s argument that those media releases did not contain any materially new information. Yes, they mainly merely reiterated the SABC’s position, but they also included quite important new data, which go to the heart of the SABC’s defence.
  7. Based on a report by BRC TAMS (for the period April 2025 to March 2026), the SABC replied that Face the Nation did underperform inter alia in that the programme’s:

a. viewers were materially below the average slot benchmark;

b. rating was not under the top five; and

c. competitive ranking was 42, while the target was to be in the top 30.

109. This information seems to substantiate the Corporations vehement denial that it has acted under political influence. At the very least, it should have been reported and left to the public to decide for themselves.

Executive producers

  1. The complaint is that it is factually incorrect to report that:

a. executive producers at the SABC can decide whether a show should be cancelled, as decisions of that nature are taken at a significantly higher level; and

b. Face the Nation was a high-performing “flagship” programme, when in fact BRC TAMS data demonstrates that it averaged 121,000 viewers (which is materially below the channel’s prime-time benchmark).

111. Again, it is not Sunday Times who made these statements as a fact, it merely quoted a source who said, “Dee, then, is the one who went to say, ‘We are not going to renew Clement because of that’. Normally the people who make decisions on presenters are executive producers, not even the head of TV, but on this one of Clement it is her [Uren] who said, ‘This one is not going to be renewed’.”

112. I am satisfied that Sunday Times was merely a messenger in this case, and that it had the right to publish these allegations as allegations.

Headlines

  1. These are the headlines in question:

a. ANC muscles SABC to axe ‘harsh’ show (Sunday Times, print edition);

b. Too hot to handle: ANC muscles SABC to axe ‘harsh’ show (TimesLive, online edition); and

c. Canned SABC talk show drew ‘millions’ of viewers (TimesLive, online edition).

114. Clause 10.1 of the Press Code is relevant. It reads, “Headlines … shall not mislead the public and shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report … in question”.

115. It is a pity that, after Madisa went out of his way to ensure that he presented allegations as allegations and not as facts, the writer(s) of those headlines cannot say the same.

116. The following allegations are presented as facts:

a. “ANC muscles SABC”; and

b. “Canned SABC”.

117. Those phrases are indeed misleading as they do not reasonably reflect the content of the articles.

118. Moreover, the use of the word “millions” (of viewers) needs to be explained. Under Point 62, Wheatly says, “Collectively, our reasonable calculation is that the Programme … has over 4 million YouTube views … The Programme accordingly did draw ‘millions of viewers’.” As this stands in contrast to the figures proffered by the SABC, the discrepancy should be explained to the public – clause 1.9 of the Press Code inter alia says that a report should be supplemented “once new information becomes available”.

Digital banner

  1. The banner reads, “SABC AXES SHOW ‘AFTER PRESIDENCY, ANC PROTEST’.”
  2. There is nothing wrong with this text, as it used inverted commas to ascribe the statement as an opinion and not as a fact.

Finding

  1. The headlines are in breach of Clause 10.1 of the Press Code.
  2. The neglect to report the SABC’s figures, as documented under Point 118, is in breach of Clause 1.9 of the Code.
  3. The rest of the complaint is dismissed.

Sanction

  1. Given the seriousness of the matter, the publications are directed to:

a. apologise unconditionally for stating, as fact, in the headlines that the “ANC had muscled the SABC” (into making an editorial decision), as well as for labelling the SABC as being “canned”;

b. retract those statements;

c. publish the figures provided by the SABC to motivate its decision not to renew the programme; and

d. explain where the “millions of viewers” came from.

125. The above should:

a. be published on the front page of the Sunday Times;

b. be published in print and on all platforms of the publication where the articles were published;

c. be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed or, in the event of such an application, after that ruling;

d. be published with the apology in the introductory sentence and with a headline including the words “apology” and “SABC”;

e. refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;

f. end with the sentence, “Visit org.za for the full finding”;

g. be published with the logo of the Press Council; and

h. be approved by me.

Appeals procedure

The Complaints Procedure stipulates that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at khanyim@presscouncilsa.org.za

Johan Retief

Acting Press Ombud

2 June 2026

[1] The Broadcast Research Council of South Africa.

Related Posts