By Hassen Lorgat
This morning I woke up to the message that the SA Zionist Federation is quoting me favourably. I smiled and wondered: have they come around to the principles of one person, one vote in a unity state in Israel-Palestine? But no, it was more mundane.
Their media release was about ADJUDICATION NO: 24/A/2026, where they welcomed the BCCSA’s “ruling in our complaint against 702, following a broadcast in which the term ‘Zionist entity’ was repeatedly used to describe Israel without appropriate challenge or context.”
They noted that the BCCSA found in the SAZF’s favour and ordered 702 to broadcast an apology, but went further and stated thus:
“Of particular significance, the Commission relied on the precedent established in Lorgat v SABC (SAfm). It is a useful reminder that broadcasting standards and the precedents that uphold them apply consistently – irrespective of the political perspective of the complainant.
Precedent works both ways.”
For this discussion I will not enter the debate about whether Israel is a Zionist entity or not, but rather focus on the ruling quoted and its significance.:CASE NUMBER: 16/2025 – LORGAT VS SABC SAFM – BALANCE
The case was made with the support of various human rights organisations, in particular: Peoples Media Consortium (PMC), Media Review Network (MRN), Palestine Solidarity Alliance (PSA), Palestine Solidarity Campaign (Cape Town) (PSC), and South African Jews for a Free Palestine (SAJFP).
The ruling was unanimous, as both Commissioners Edwin Naidoo and John Chemaly formally concurred with Dr Sunette Lötter’s evaluation and ruling. Their concurrence strengthens the reprimand against the SABC, particularly in their shared interpretation of Clause 13.1 of the BCCSA Code.
In post-ruling media advocacy, we highlighted the voluminous evidence in favour of our arguments over a series of programmes. For those who know the details, you may skip this list:
- 3 Oct 2025: SABC News (The Agenda) & SAfm (Update at Noon) interviewed Ariel Seidman on Israel detaining flotilla activists.
- 3–4 Oct 2025: SAfm (The National Pulse, The Weekend View) featured excerpts from the Seidman interview, discussing the flotilla and public responses.
- 6 Oct 2025: SAfm (First Take SA) interviewed Rolene Marks on South Africans detained in Israel.
Dr Sunette Lötter, chair of the BCCSA Tribunal, weighed the arguments from both the complainants – particularly the powerful South African Zionist Federation and the groups I mentioned above.
The ruling confirmed that there was “a clear breach of its duty to the public.” It serves as a permanent record of the broadcaster’s failure, regardless of the efforts by SABC apologists to downplay the outcome. It is thus ironic that those who did not find the ruling significant are now using it as an organising strategy.
Lötter’s Ruling: A Deeper Look
It is interesting to note that Dr Lötter in this case crossed her own Rubicon. She was a panelist in the case led by Prof. Kobus van Rooyen which I lost (Lorgat vs SAFM, Case: 22/2013), which refused to entertain international context as being in the “public interest.” I will come back to that, but in the current case, the BCCSA stuck narrowly to Clause 13 regarding the Gaza flotilla incident. Simply put, the BCCSA found:
- The SABC interviewed only Israeli representatives in the impugned programmes.
- The later Palestinian interview was not about the flotilla incident and was not broadcast in a comparable slot.
- This failed the requirement for timely and balanced presentation of opposing views.
The SABC was reprimanded and urged to ensure future compliance with Clause 13.1.
A new love for the Lorgat Ruling
We have observed that the SAZF has embarked on a concerted campaign targeting a number of media organisations. I am not as convinced as my comrades are that this is an abuse of the process, but the BCCSA and the new Commissioners must remain vigilant.
New blood often brings in new energies, but it can also introduce naivety and ignore history.
https://www.bccsa.co.za/our-commissioners/ – they appear very enthusiastic and may inadvertently be giving those whom we have complained about for dominating public spaces with dominant views in favour of Zionism the opportunity to go out and win arguments / space that they are losing on the ground.
The 702 apology
The 702 apology was read by Siyabonga Motha and it revolved around his / the station’s assertion that the term “Zionist entity” is a political term used primarily by critics of Israel to refer to the State of Israel and deny it international recognition. The term was apparently used repeatedly by academic Jessica Breakey, who spoke on behalf of the Global Sumud Land Convoy.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1082869497568989
https://x.com/SAzionfed/status/2099893333208576450
They celebrate: WE TOOK 702 TO THE BCCSA AND WE WON.
Concluding trends
I can only hope that the Zionist Federation and its members, including the SA Jewish Board of Deputies, must take the victories alongside the defeats. It is a pity that some of their supporters, like the SA Jewish Report, chose rather to leave the Press Council as they were about to be expelled. https://www.politicsweb.co.za/news/sajr-vs-the-press-council-when-in-doubt-blame-the-victim
For the BCCSA Commissioners, I say welcome to the gigantic role in enhancing public service. Colleagues, you could do well to revisit the case we did and the ruling. In a number of instances we showed how the voices of the marginalised were minimised and written out of the script. This continues on a daily basis whether it is around the anti-immigrant discourses, to the genocide in Gaza / Palestine.
The ruling was a reprimand against the broadcaster – SABC. They were put on terms and not to do this again.
At that time, I argued that it was a an opportunity for public service broadcasting to renew itself.
Renewal?
I argued that the goal of the complaint and other such complaints has been to educate citizens through public media spaces where audiences and producers interact, rejecting passive consumption of dominant narratives. I sincerely believe that Public broadcasting and open debate on commercial radio and TV stations must be framed as a commons and public goods requiring secure funding and independent governance.
I spoke of the SABC’s underfunding I noted that we could see how they report / or fail to report the ICJ genocide case by South Africa. More such reporting is needed. In the case of the SABC I argued, and it remains a fact that it remains vulnerable to external pressures and accused of “speaking from both sides of its mouth” on the genocide—acknowledging it while also platforming opposing views under “false balance.”
In the BCCSA case I argued from Ghana, we asked that journalists not be (seen) not neutral umpires; when facts are clear, they must report the truth rather than give equal weight to false claims. In the face of genocide, neutrality is impossible—ethics and victim support must underpin coverage. This is what my case was all about. And all they broadcaster got – was a firm warning. The recording of this hearing exists and the new commissioners must listen to it.
What is required is that we remain vigilant and work together so that the powerful do not rewrite or reinterpret the ruling. Media equity and justice is a long and inclusive process, not a once-off.
Hassen Lorgat