By Hassen Lorgat
This letter is written in reply to the Independent Electoral Commission, following the complaint contained in my earlier letter about the exclusion of some parties from a free-to-air television debate held in October 2026. The initial Open Letter was published here and here.
Those who should take particular note of this letter are the South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF), the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA), the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA), and the media house that ran the debate, eNCA.
It also poses questions to political parties, and to the various forms of political party funding that do not make the news.
Dear Colleagues,
I write to you openly in my capacity as a citizen, voter, and activist concerned with the integrity of our electoral democracy. This letter follows correspondence with the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) regarding the jurisdiction and fairness of media coverage during elections. I have chosen to address you directly because, while the IEC has sought to deflect responsibility by framing this as purely a media matter, the issues at hand concern the media’s central role in electoral campaigning and the exercise of constitutional rights. I believe you, as the custodians of public information, must engage with these questions.
The Core Issue: Pre-determined, through biased selection?
The matter arises from a broadcast on eNCA, hosted in partnership with the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD), which featured a pre-selected group of political parties. My original complaint was directed at political parties, their funders, the media, and the relevant regulatory bodies. The IEC’s response was to claim the matter falls outside its jurisdiction and that its Code of Conduct does not create binding obligations on broadcasters.
I submit that this is a fundamentally flawed reading of the concerns raised. The media is not a neutral bystander in elections; it is an integral part of electoral campaigning and spending, both of which are regulated. The decision to include some parties and exclude others from a broadcast debate is not a neutral editorial choice—it is a political act that shapes voter perception and interferes with the letter and spirit of open public debate. It is, in effect, an in-kind contribution to the included parties’ campaigns, funded by the broadcaster rather than by the party.
The Overlap of Political Actors
The SAJBD, while formally neutral, is a political actor with significant policy overlap with specific parties, notably the Democratic Alliance (DA). This is not a matter of conjecture. Individuals who have held leadership positions in the SAJBD are now prominent DA public representatives, including Michael Bagraim and Darren Bergman. The connections are well-documented, including the participation of DA MPs in international task forces aligned with SAJBD positions, as reported in the South African Jewish Report (“Government ‘Pandoring’ to antisemitism, Jewish MPs tell taskforce,” 15 September 2022).
The decision to exclude other parties—such as Al Jama-ah and the EFF—is not accidental. Both the DA and the SAJBD have publicly strained relations with these parties. The assumption that this exclusion was not deliberate is one I do not accept.
Political Funding and Media Exposure
The Political Party Funding Act places the oversight of party funding squarely within the IEC’s purview. In its report for the first quarter of 2026/27, the IEC noted that political parties declared R116.8 million in compliant private donations ahead of the 4 November 2026 Local Government Elections. The DA is the best-funded political party in the country. Preferential broadcasting exposure for well-resourced parties reinforces this dominance and undermines the fairness of the electoral playing field.
A broadcast on a free-to-air channel provides resources and exposure to some parties at the expense of others. This touches on undeclared political funding, an issue the IEC is mandated to oversee. If the IEC is mandated to oversee party funding, how can it ignore a form of media exposure that functions as an undeclared, in-kind donation worth millions to the recipient parties? Yet when a citizen raises this, the response is that there is no standing and no jurisdiction.
The Slogan: “Your Democracy, Own It”
The IEC’s public education programmes encourage citizens to “own” their democracy and to be active participants. The IEC’s own factsheet sets out the conditions for free and fair elections: multiple parties participating; campaigning without fear; voters exercising free choice; respect for diverse views and open public debate; every registered voter able to vote; elections open and free from undue influence; no electoral fraud; and all parties accepting the results. Yet when citizens attempt to hold the system accountable for the exclusion of parties from critical debates, those efforts are dismissed.
What is worth emphasising is that the exclusion of some parties from a critical electoral debate is pre-selection and bias. It interferes with the letter and spirit of open public debate. Voters who support excluded parties are deprived of the opportunity to make an informed decision. They are not given a chance to change their minds. The elections may be open, but the electoral process is not. It borders on a special type of fraud: one where money calls the shots, not voters’ needs or their constitutional rights.
In my original letter I asked why the ANC, and by extension the other invited parties, did not speak out against the unfair criteria of inclusion and exclusion applied to a public hall debate that was broadcast. A narrow reading of my letter prevented that question from being seen. Read more broadly, the IEC’s Code requires political parties to speak out against “political violence and threats against other parties,” the IEC, members of the public and the media. I do not think a threat to our democracy should be ignored where money and ideology determine participation in electoral debates.
The IEC and the Media: A History of Partnership
The IEC has always seen the media as a partner in voter education towards an accountable democracy. This partnership has been evident in many elections.
In February 2016, SANEF met with the IEC and political parties. SANEF asked the IEC to include fair treatment of the media in the declarations and pledges that political parties sign during elections. SANEF also condemned past instances where bribes disguised as “cooldrink money” or “transport money” were offered to journalists to cover certain political parties’ events. SANEF stated it “campaigns for ethical journalism” and expressed “our willingness to assist political parties who wish to better understand media operations.” Political parties welcomed SANEF’s offer and “complained that there was inequitable coverage of their parties by the media.”
In the 2024 elections and beyond, the IEC worked on combatting fake news, reminding South Africans to register and vote where they are registered. The IEC once again affirmed the media plays a vital role in electoral democracy, stating that the “free flow of credible information about political parties, candidates, voting station operations and electoral regulations is a prerequisite for free and fair elections.” It is for this reason they partnered with SANEF and community media stakeholders on a month-long nationwide training programme for journalists. The aim, they stated, was to deepen journalists’ understanding of the legislative framework, electoral processes and regulatory environment, thereby improving the accuracy and ethics of election reporting.
About 40 days before the 4 November 2026 local government elections, on 24 September 2026, SANEF warmly received the statement by the IEC Chairperson Mosotho Moepya “about the crucial duty of all political party leaders and their supporters to ensure and actively facilitate unhindered election-related reporting by all media in South Africa.” SANEF noted that the formal signing of the Electoral Code of Conduct affirmed that “an unhindered, independent media was a foundational pillar of a free and fair election.” Article 8 of the Code explicitly sets out the strict relationship between political parties, candidates, and the news media, requiring parties to respect the media, guarantee access, and ensure journalist safety.
Thus far we have seen the principled commitment of both the IEC and the media to democracy building. It can be reasonably concluded that when some political formations are systematically included or excluded by media entities or organisers, this undermines the integrity of political reporting and favours well-resourced parties.
It is worse still when the decision about who participates and who does not is made by SANEF members or journalists themselves, because that violates the code of ethics. All of us—media workers included—must speak out against unfair treatment that favours the well-resourced. SANEF committed itself to ethical journalism and offered to help political parties “better understand how media operations function”; that commitment must be applied consistently. Fighting fake news and disinformation is meaningless if, at the same time, parties are excluded from debates because of their opinions.
The Western Cape Precedent?
When I wrote my complaint to the IEC and others (around October 20–22), I was not aware of an article that deals specifically with the Western Cape. On 25 September 2026, Eye Witness News (EWN) wrote under the headline: “IEC warns political parties against media attacks.” The subheading was unmistakable: “Political parties contesting elections in the Western Cape have signed the IEC’s code of conduct, which now includes responsibilities to call out disinformation.”
It is significant that this took place in the Western Cape, and equally significant that Commissioner Janet Love—whom I had approached when I first lodged my complaint—was invited to speak at the Cape media event. Her participation underwrote the vital role independent media plays in ensuring voters have access to credible information. “We need to understand that journalists are part and parcel of the process. And we need to respect them and allow them to do their work. That doesn’t mean we have to agree with their interpretation, but we need to allow them to do their work without intimidation,” she said.
Whilst the focus of the input was to stop individuals and political parties from attacking journalism online, it was about media integrity in the elections. It presupposed that disinformation would come from political parties. But having an uneven political platform—excluding those with different views—is censorship.
The Cape Town Mayoral Debate: A Case in Point
I wrote in my original complaint / open letter regarding the exclusion of some political groups was problematic thus:
“Fast forward to the Cape Town mayoral debate on 18 October 2026. It featured only the DA (Geordin Hill-Lewis), the ANC (Jerimia Thuynsma), the FF Plus (Dr Corné Mulder) and the ACDP (Felon Christians). The Patriotic Alliance (PA) was invited and its representative, Cheslin Daniels, arrived at the venue, but the party withdrew shortly before the broadcast. Notably absent were parties such as the EFF, which typically advance the issues of economic freedom and international solidarity, including Palestine, that I believe should be integral to our conception of who we are as South Africans.”
I argued directly on the impacts these exclusions will have on the electoral process and our rights to vote on an informed basis:
“…the fact that this has happened over the past few years does not mean that constitutional rights and the fair play rules society lives by have not been violated. We are obliged to look at the 2021 local government election results in the Western Cape, with Cape Town at the core, to determine who the contenders could be. We all know that the Democratic Alliance (DA) performed best, retaining control of the City of Cape Town with an absolute majority, though its vote share declined compared with the previous term. The ANC remained the official opposition, while the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) became the third-largest party in Cape Town with 10 seats. GOOD won 9 seats, and the newly participating Cape Coloured Congress (CCC) won 7. Al Jama-ah performed poorly, winning 3 seats with a vote share of approximately 1.19% (proportional representation votes), making it a minor party in the council.”
The EFF, with 10 seats, and GOOD, with 9 seats, were demonstrably significant contenders for the Cape Town electorate. Their exclusion from a mayoral debate is not an editorial choice; it is an act of political gatekeeping that ignores the actual electoral landscape.
The IEC’s Code and the Media’s Role
The Electoral Code supports my argument. It states: “Parties and candidates must also inform the public that all people have the right: to be free to express their political beliefs and to be part of any political party; and to join in any political campaigns, marches or public meetings.”
How is this to be done without the mass media, as Commissioner Love affirmed? It cannot be done without the mass dissemination of a free-to-air broadcaster like eNCA.
The suggestion that if I am unhappy I could take judicial action violates the principles of access to justice as outlined in the Promotion of Access to Justice Act (PAJA). I do not have the funds, and the organisation I work with is a voluntary, self-funding caucus of activists. This is a matter that falls squarely within the IEC’s mandate to ensure a free and fair election, including the fairness of the information environment. The suggestion that I pursue judicial action is a deflection; PAJA is intended to make justice accessible, not to exclude citizens who lack the resources for litigation. This matter is important to address—for its essence, and secondly to determine the legitimacy and legality of such debates for the future.
Finally, I believe that the IEC is complicit or implicated in this discussion if the broadcast took place during the electoral period. Broadcasting on a free-to-air channel is about funding and resources for some parties to the detriment of others. The IEC Code of Conduct states: “Political parties that break the code can: be fined; be stopped from working in an area; or have their votes in an area cancelled.”
Conclusion: A Call to the Media
It is over to you now. The media cannot claim to be a neutral partner in democracy while simultaneously acting as a gatekeeper that pre-selects which political voices are heard. The exclusion of parties from broadcast debates is not a minor editorial decision—it is a political act with profound consequences for the fairness of our elections.
I call on SANEF, the BCCSA, ICASA, and all media houses to:
- Acknowledge the political nature of broadcast debates and the responsibility that comes with organising them.
- Develop and enforce clear, transparent, and fair criteria for inclusion in electoral debates that are based on demonstrated electoral support, not on the preferences of editors or powerful interest groups.
- Recognise that the media’s role in voter education and electoral integrity is inseparable from the principle of fair and equitable access for all political parties.
- Speak out against the unfair treatment of political parties that favours the well-resourced and undermines the integrity of our democracy.
I await your response and am available to personally attend any proceedings aimed at resolving this matter.
In solidarity,
Hassen Lorgat, Media Justice Activist