Zoleka Qodashe1 February 2025 | 6:49

Court finds SABC CEO can’t dictate that it should stop using GNU term

Former President Jacob Zuma in 2024 served the public broadcaster’s Nomsa Chabeli with a letter of demand that the institution stop using the term.

Court finds SABC CEO can’t dictate that it should stop using GNU term

Picture: Zaian via Wikimedia Commons

JOHANNESBURG - The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has found that the CEO of the SABC does not have the power to dictate that the organisation should stop using the term 'Government of National Unity' (GNU).  

Former President Jacob Zuma in 2024 served the public broadcaster’s Nomsa Chabeli with a letter of demand that the institution stop using the term.  

ALSO READ: Court dismisses Zuma's challenge against SABC's use of term 'government of national unity'

Based on the refusal to accede to the demand, Zuma and the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party sought a review of the decision under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).

However, the court cites, among others, that the Broadcasting Act entails that the SABC must provide a wide range of programming that offers a plurality of views and a variety of news, information and analysis.  

The former president and his party battled against the SABC in the high court on Monday in an unsuccessful attempt to invalidate the broadcaster's use of the term.  

The alternative relief sought by Zuma and the MK Party was a review in terms of PAJA.

However, the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg says the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) Act makes provision for aggrieved persons to lodge complaints to be investigated by the Complaints Committee, and any decision it makes would be administrative action and could be subject to review.  

It added that there are processes a party must go through, which do not include making demands to the CEO, who is not empowered to stop the broadcaster from using the term.  

It said the CEO's refusal to comply with the applicants' demand does not constitute administrative action or an exercise of public power.  

Thus, the court finds, the claim under PAJA fails.