
The court ruled that the SABC’s terminology was neither misleading nor unlawful, adding that the matter did not warrant judicial intervention. Presiding Judge Denise Fisher dismissed the case, stating that the legal challenge lacked merit and that courts should not be drawn into political disputes. She further ruled that the applicants must cover legal costs, including those of two counsels.
Zuma and the MK Party argued that the SABC’s use of the term GNU was misleading and did not accurately reflect the country’s political realities. They claimed that the government lacked true inclusivity, as opposition parties like the MK Party and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) were excluded from its formation.
Speaking for the MK Party, Advocate Dali Mpofu argued that calling the government a GNU gave the public the wrong idea. He accused the SABC of siding with the ruling party and stressed that the broadcaster should report accurately.
On behalf of the SABC, Advocate Terry Motau defended the broadcaster’s editorial choices, arguing that it had not violated any policies by using the term GNU. He pointed out that the MK Party had other avenues available, such as the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA), to formally raise concerns instead of taking legal action.
Motau also argued that the case had no strong legal basis and that courts should not be used to resolve political or media disagreements.
The ruling reinforces the importance of media independence in South Africa and the judiciary’s reluctance to interfere in political matters that do not have a strong legal basis. The outcome also stressed the potential financial consequences of pursuing litigation without substantive claims, as the court ordered the MK Party and Zuma to bear the legal costs.
As of now, the SABC has not issued an official response to the ruling. It remains unclear whether the MK Party will pursue further legal action or accept the court’s decision.