The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) welcomes the decision by Independent Media to rejoin the Press Council of South Africa (PCSA), after a seven-year absence.
The renewed membership is effective from 01 January 2024.
Since Independent Media’s decision to terminate its membership of the Press Council in 2016, SANEF has been vocal about the importance of having all legitimate media organisations falling under the jurisdiction of the Press Council.
This allows for the Press Ombudsman to adjudicate complaints levelled by members of the public against media houses that contravene the Press Code.
As previously stated, SANEF remains committed to the current system of independent co-regulation by the Press Council, which has four retired judges in its various structures and a panel that includes more representatives from the public than from the media.
Upholding the Press Code is an important part of efforts to restore trust in the news media, hence SANEF has always encouraged every self-respecting news entity to subscribe to the Code.
Independent Media joins the PCSA’s membership of just over 400 organisations who subscribe to the Code.
Note to Editors:
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) is a non-profit organisation whose members are editors, senior journalists, and journalism trainers from all areas of South African media. We are committed to championing South Africa’s hard-won freedom of expression and promoting quality, ethics, and diversity in the South African media. We promote excellence in journalism through fighting for media freedom, writing policy submissions, research, and education and training programmes. SANEF is not a union.
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) calls on the publishers of the SA Jewish Report to reconsider their position, following the publication’s expulsion from the Press Council of South Africa.
SANEF finds it unfortunate that the South African Jewish Report forced the hand of the Press Council of South Africa (PCSA) to take the unprecedented action of expelling the SAJR after the publication refused to abide by the rulings of the Acting Press Ombud and the PCSA Chair of Appeals, Judge Bernard Ngoepe.
The matter stemmed from a complaint by the SA BDS Coalition and GIWUSA v SA Jewish Report. According to Press Council Chair Judge Phillip Levinsohn, the decision was taken after lengthy correspondence and after the SA Jewish Report had refused to abide by the finding against them. Judge Levinsohn said the Council spent time seeking to resolve the issue. However, the SA Jewish Report refused to publish the ruling against them.
SANEF calls on all members of the PCSA to respect the Press Council and its rulings. The Press Council is the bulwark against interference in the media and any self-respecting media organisation should be a member of the Press Council.
The Press Council continues to adjudicate complaints by members of the public and their findings, regardless of how they affect any member, must be respected.
The work of the PCSA is important in strengthening our democracy and ensuring that freedom of speech is protected while the highest ethical standards are upheld by the media.
SANEF reiterates our support for the Press Council and wish to implore all members, who subscribe to the principles of the co-regulatory mechanism, to remain committed to the system which is regarded as one of the best in the world.
We note that the Press Council is a voluntary, co-regulatory, public-dominated body which, inter alia, mediates and hand down binding ruling in terms of the Press Code. It does that to ensure ethical, fair, journalism.
We also wish to remind those who join the PCSA that they inadvertently commit to being bound by, and to publish, rulings of the Press Ombud and the Press Council’s appeals bodies. It should also be noted that dissatisfied parties with Press Ombuds’ rulings have the right to take them on appeal to the Appeals Panel, headed by an eminent, retired Judge, and if they are still unhappy, that can take the process on judicial review.
It is our view that no member of the Press Council should simply refuse to publish rulings against them. Therefore, compliance by the council’s members is deemed essential for its sustainability and credibility. Hence, the idea of simply refusing to adhere to its rulings not only undermines the Press Council but is also unfair to the complainants.
We implore the publishers of the SA Jewish Report to reconsider their position and abide by the ruling and to return to the fold of the PCSA.
Note to Editors: The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) is a non-profit organisation whose members are editors, senior journalists, and journalism trainers from all areas of the South African media. We are committed to championing South Africa’s hard-won freedom of expression and promoting quality, ethics, and diversity in the South African media. We promote excellence in journalism through fighting for media freedom, writing policy submissions, research and education and training programmes. SANEF is not a union.
The Press Council of South Africa invites applications or nominations for PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES for current and future vacancies on the council and panel adjudicators
Applicants must be citizens of and permanently resident in South Africa, be at least 21 years old, and committed to the values underpinning the South African Constitution, as well as the Code of Ethics and Conduct for South African print and online media.
Any person who has a financial interest in the media, occupies a seat in a local, provincial or national legislative body, or is an office-bearer of a political party or movement, or is in the employ of the public service, is not eligible. A nomination must be accompanied by a letter from the nominee accepting the nomination.
The Press Council also invites applications for the PUBLIC ADVOCATE VACANCY
The applicant is required to have in-depth knowledge of the role of the media in a democratic society in general, and of the Press Code. She/he will be impartial and fair and must have strong communication, facilitation and mediation skills.
The Press Council of South Africa has appointed Mr Fanie Groenewald as acting Public Advocate, with immediate effect, Executive Director Ms Latiefa Mobara announced on Thursday 20 February 2020.
Mr Groenewald is a long-standing member of the Panel of Adjudicators of the Press Council, a former Tshwane University of Technology journalism lecturer and a former Beeld newspaper journalist. He will act as Public Advocate until a permanent appointment is made to replace the former public advocate, Mr Joe Latakgomo.
Ms Mobara said: “We are delighted that Fanie Groenewald has agreed to act as the Public Advocate. He is one of our most-experienced adjudicators who has contributed to many rulings, hearings and appeals at the Press Council during the past decade.
“He understands the Press Code of South Africa intimately, having contributed deeply to its development, and he will act as the complainants’ friend – helping complainants to formulate their complaints against our subscriber members who may have transgressed and attempting to mediate fair and reasonable settlements.
“If he is unable to resolve matters by mediation and they get referred to Ms Pippa Green, the Press Ombud, for adjudication; Fanie will be available to assist and act as the representative of the complainant at the hearing.
“It is a vital role in the Press Council and Fanie will act to ensure that the process, which is free to complainants, is speedy and efficient.”
Ends
Judge Raymond Zondo head of the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture.
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) has noted on 1st October 2019 the testimony of Colonel Kobus Roelofse at the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture and the further allegations from whistleblower Colonel Naidoo. Naidoo told the Inquiry yesterday that several journalists including senior journalist at Tiso Blackstar, Ranjeni Munusamy received financial benefits from Crime Intelligence.
SANEF notes the problems that have been created by Col Naidoo’s mention of the fact that “journalists have been paid” without mentioning names. We believe that it is essential that the names are revealed and that the journalists implicated are given the space to respond.
We note that the Press Council Code is clear that “paid for” also called “brown envelope journalism” is completely unacceptable.
Section 2 of the Code deals with “Independence and Conflicts of Interest”. The Code states that:
The media shall:
2.1 not allow commercial, political, personal or other non-professional considerations to influence reporting, and avoid conflicts of interest as well as practices that could lead readers to doubt the media’s independence and professionalism;
2.2 not accept any benefit which may influence coverage;
2.3 indicate clearly when an outside organization has contributed to the cost of newsgathering; and
2.4 keep editorial material clearly distinct from advertising and sponsored events.
SANEF champions ethical journalism. If anyone has any evidence of unethical journalism – including the very serious breach of accepting funds for journalism – we encourage them to go to the Press Council.
Further, we have launched our own independent Inquiry into Media Credibility and Ethics, chaired by retired Judge Kathleen Satchwell. We encourage any South African with evidence of journalists acting unethically or illegally to approach Judge Satchwell and the authorities, including the Zondo Commission. Please send submissions to – [email protected].
In terms of Munusamy, we again welcome the decision by Tiso Blackstar to grant her special leave. We note Munusamy’s strong denial of any wrongdoing, her detailed affidavit explaining the circumstances of her car repayments and related issues and her promise to cooperate fully with the Zondo Commission. We await the outcome of the Commission’s hearings and Tiso Blackstar’s internal investigation.
For more information please contact:
Mahlatse Mahlase – SANEF Chairperson 083 399-2852
Judy Sandison – SANEF Media Freedom Committee 082 571-3334
Kate Skinner – SANEF Executive Director 082 926 6404
The South African National Editors Forum (SANEF) is appalled by Economic Freedom Front (EFF) leader Julius Malema’s call for the “banning” of investigative journalism units, amaBhungane and the Daily Maverick’s investigative unit, Scorpio, from attending their party events, including press conferences on 13 September 2019.
SANEF believes these actions mimic the apartheid state’s censorious responses to investigative reports that exposed its brutal and corrupt activities.
Mr Malema called for this banning on Thursday during the EFF’s memorial service for former Zimbabwean president, Robert Mugabe. Speaking to party supporters, Mr Malema said the publications, “should be treated as the enemy, much like the EFF did when it banned Gupta-owned, The New Age newspaper and broadcaster, ANN7”.
He stated, “We declare them as an enemy of the revolution, they should never participate in our events, we should never answer any question from amaBhungane, Daily Maverick or Scorpio. Let them write any nonsense they want to write about us. We know [the person] who writes their questions is Pravin.”
The “ban” comes after Scorpio published an exposé on Malema, party deputy president Floyd Shivambu, Shivambu’s brother Brian, as well as a cousin of Malema’s, making allegations that they are involved in the illicit flow of funds from the plundered VBS.
Mapping out the VBS money trail, Scorpio has alleged that an R16.1m transfer has been made from VBS to Brian Shivambu’s company Sgameka Projects – effectively a shell company. Scorpio has further alleged that at least R5.3m of the R16.1m flowed to Mahuna Investments. Scorpio reported that Mr Malema used Mahuna Investments’ business account as his “personal slush fund”.
SANEF wishes to challenge Mr Malema and other implicated EFF leaders to disprove these reports and /or to use the appropriate channels such as the Ombud’s Office and the Press Council if they feel aggrieved at any aspect of the reporting.
SANEF believes it is unacceptable that the leader of the third-largest political party would engage in unconstitutional actions – actions that deny journalists the opportunity to work effectively by being refused the right to attend EFF’s meetings, press conferences and other activities. In doing so, Mr Malema fundamentally undermines the right to “freedom of the press and other media” which is guaranteed in section 16(1)(a) of the Constitution. Worse, he undermines the right of ordinary people, the voting public, “to receive information and ideas” – another right that is expressly provided for in section 16(1)(b) of the Constitution – as the press is the most significant channel through which people access political/current affairs information and ideas.
Mr Malema is titled an “Honourable Member of Parliament” and as an MP he has undertaken, as part of his oath of office, to uphold the Constitution. His calling for this ban of the country’s leading (and award-winning) investigative journalism units is at odds with the oath he took and with accepted standards of conduct for members of parliament.
In the wake of these attacks, we hope that members of parliament will condemn, in the strongest terms, the EFF Leader’s attempts to drag South Africa back to the days of apartheid censorship where media intimidation by apartheid leaders was routine. Mr Malema needs to be held to his oath to uphold the Constitution.
SANEF is currently involved in a court case against the EFF – focusing on stopping the intimidation and harassment of journalists. The matter was heard in August in the Equality Court. Judgement is reserved.
For more information please contact:
Sam Mkokeli – SANEF Media Freedom Chairperson, 082 084 2051
Kate Skinner – SANEF Executive Director 082 926 6404
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) notes and welcomes the public debate in the wake of our Equality Court application against the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and its leader, Julius Malema. We believe that this discussion will strengthen and improve our national discourse on the importance of media freedom and freedom of expression, which we fundamentally stand for and promote.
Some of the commentary expressed has misinterpreted our case, which was brought under Section 10 of the Equality Act, and falsely accuses SANEF of undermining freedom of expression. This could not be further from the truth (our full set of court papers is available at https://sanef.org.za/sanef-vs-eff-court-papers-2/).
SANEF and five journalists are seeking relief against the EFF and Malema following a spate of abuse and harassment by people purporting to be EFF supporters against journalists who had been specifically named by Malema. At the heart of our case is the singling out of targeted individual journalists by Malema and the EFF leadership and the creation of an enabling environment for abuse and harassment to be levelled against them.
SANEF and the journalists approached the Equality Court on legal advice as we believe that the conduct of the EFF and their supporters constitute hate speech and harassment against the named journalists.
SANEF’s choice of lodging the complaint in the Equality Court and using the Equality Act
SANEF approached the Equality Court as we believed this court was both appropriate and relatively expeditious. For reasons beyond the control of SANEF, this case is being heard almost eight months after it was lodged. This is unfortunate but regardless of that delay, SANEF remains of the view that the Equality Court is an appropriate court.
In addition to infringing the constitutionally protected freedom of the media, we believe that the statements by the EFF and Malema as well as the resulting conduct of the EFF and their supporters constitute hate speech and harassment in terms of the Equality Act.
Section 10 of the Equality Act states: “[N]o person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to –
(a) Be hurtful;
(b) Be harmful or to incite harm;
(c) Promote or propagate hatred.
This section does not require hate speech to involve incitement to imminent violence, as wrongly quoted by some commentators.
Sections 10 and 11 of the Act prohibit hate speech and harassment respectively based on expressly prohibited or similar grounds that negatively affect human dignity and enjoyment of rights, such as, in this case, the complainants’ occupation as journalists.
According to the EFF’s papers in the Equality Court, the basis of this abuse has been the complainants’ occupation as journalists and the perceived bias in their reportage on the EFF. While SANEF welcomes fair criticism of journalists, we cannot condone individuals being subjected to harassment or hate speech based on their occupation, in contravention of the Equality Act.
The trigger for the case
On 20 November 2018, Malema made a statement outside the Zondo Commission during which he named several journalists whom he perceived to have been biased in their reportage against the EFF and in favour of the EFF’s political rivals. He identified these journalists as “the enemy” who need to be dealt with decisively. These statements were also shared on Twitter by the EFF in addition to other tweets by the leadership of the EFF singling out and targeting specific journalists.
The journalists named by Malema have been subjected to a barrage of abuse and harassment by purported supporters of the EFF, ranging from name-calling and insults to threats of violence and calls for the addresses of journalists to be made public. This abuse appears to be a direct result, and in support, of the statements made by the EFF. SANEF has made Malema and the EFF aware of the results of their utterances and has requested that they condemn the abuse on the part of their purported supporters. They have however refused to do so. This has created an environment which enables the abuse and harassment of journalists whose reportage the EFF and its supporters do not agree with.
Max du Preez, one of the applicants in the matter, was one of the journalists named by Malema outside the Zondo Commission. In his affidavit before the court, he details what he believes to have been the impact of Malema’s words.
“I attended the Zondo Commission hearings on Wednesday 21 November 2018. I left after lunch. While I was waiting for my Uber driver to collect me (right next to the BP garage), some of the EFF protestors walked by. One of them recognised me and shouted my name. About a dozen of the protestors then mobbed me, shouting threats and abuse at me. One threat I remember was ‘You’re not safe on these streets, you white bastard’. I was distressed by this incident and feared for my safety. Fortunately, two policemen were very close by and intervened. The protestors then moved away and I was not harmed. It did make me wonder, though, what could have happened if there were no policemen around.’
Three days after Malema’s speech, Ranjeni Munusamy, one of the applicants, was intimidated at a shopping mall. She states in her affidavit:
“At approximately 18:00 on that day, I visited a shopping centre near my house. I go there often on my way home from work. I do not wish to disclose the precise location because I do not want a repetition of what happened on the day. While shopping, I noticed three men looking at me. As I walked past them, they repeatedly called my surname in a mocking tone. I tried to ignore them, walking past them quickly. The men were waiting for me at the entrance of the shop when I left. As I passed them they hissed at me and shouted my name. I was so distressed by the incident that I tweeted what had happened. As a consequence, I am wary of going out to public places.”
SANEF believes and has argued in court that these and other online forms of abuse, harassment and hatred levelled at the applicants were ‘directly’ as a result of Malema’s speech outside the Zondo Commission.
Sanef Chair Mahlatse Mahlase greets EFF leaders Julius Malema and Mbuyiseni Ndlozi at the Equality Court
The purpose of the case
The purpose of our complaint is not to stifle criticism of the media and journalists – the issue is that we believe that the comments by the EFF, Malema and Malema’s purported supporters go beyond fair criticism of the media and constitute hate speech under the Equality Act.
SANEF had initially attempted to resolve its concerns with the EFF through direct engagement and twice requested a meeting. However, the EFF refused to meet with SANEF. In the end, we had no option but to seek legal recourse.
The crux of SANEF’s and the journalists’ complaint is the nature and effect of Malema’s and the EFF’s statements. SANEF believes that Malema has been shown to make inflammatory statements which he is aware will incite a violent and abusive response from his purported supporters and that he has refused to condemn the abuse when it is brought to his attention. As the leader of the third biggest party in South Africa, Malema should be aware that his and the EFF’s words and actions, or lack thereof, have consequences. They should also be held responsible for those consequences. Furthermore, they have to protect the rights enshrined in the Constitution and a duty therefore to condemn the violation of media freedom which has resulted from their statements.
Ultimately, after our failed attempts to meet with the EFF leadership and try to resolve the matter amicably, we had no option but to approach the Equality Court for the relief we are seeking. The alternative was not an option: to do nothing and wait for a journalist to be assaulted, injured or killed before we approach the courts to determine if the EFF’s utterings meet the test for hate speech.
The Press Council of South Africa has published an easy-to-read Code of Ethics manual for journalists titled Decoding the Code.
“Decoding the Code” is an ethics made easy manual or a “Code of Ethics for dummies” which attempts to simplify decision-making of complex and vexing questions of what to or not to publish under deadline pressures. It is immensely useful and a must for every newsroom.” Writes Mathatha Tsedu, former Sanef executive director who wrote the Foreword in the manual.
Mr Tsedu says there is hardly anything that anyone can do without influencing somebody else; there is nothing that a journalist can do in her or his line of duty without affecting somebody. Journalists should fully understand and appreciate just how much power they have.
That everything they do in their professional lives influences people. That this influence can sometimes make or break a person. And that this places a huge responsibility on everybody concerned.
A Code of Ethics and Conduct is the first and most important way of regulating the press and online media (“the media”, for the purpose of this exercise).
“Editors and journalists often ask me for advice prior to publication. My first question always is: What does the Code of Ethics and Conduct say? In most cases, the answer to this question solves the problem,” writes Mr Tsedu.
Johan Retief, former Ombudsman and author of the document, says: “A Code of Ethics is an ethical compass without which the media are all at sea.”
This document is a discussion of the latest South African Code of Ethics and Conduct, section by section and sentence by sentence, explaining why the issues contained in them are important and illustrating the principles and consequences involved – in the hope that this would provide basic guidelines to journalists for acting ethically at all times.
There are examples of actual cases presented in boxes in this interactive version of the booklet published by the Press Council of South Africa.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorised as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyse and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. Opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always active
Necessary cookies are essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Analytics
Analytics cookies are used to track user behaviour on our website. We process these cookies to understand user engagement and improve user experience on our website.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.