The Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA) has ruled in favour of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) and its use of the word ”Tshwane” in television broadcasts.
The commission found that the use of the word did not contravene the broadcasting code of conduct.
In response, the SABC said it has been vindicated in its opinion that there is nothing peculiar about the use of the word and that Pretoria has always been known as Tshwane.
The complaint against the SABC was brought before the commission by the Democratic Alliance, the Freedom Front Plus and lobby groups who argued the broadcaster was misleading the public, as the name had not yet been made official.
A two-hour hearing at the BCCSA’s offices in Hyde Park, Johannesburg, took place in May.
”The SABC thought it well to use the name Tshwane and broadcast it as if it replaced the name Pretoria,” Anton Alberts, counsel for the FF+, told the five-member commission in May.
He argued that any change in the name of Pretoria should only come ”from the highest level of legislative power of South Africa”.
In the interest of fulfilling its mandate to broadcast in the public interest, the SABC should check whether the name changes it makes in its reports are factually correct, Alberts submitted.
”I believe you can only refer to a town or a city if it is registered as the title deeds office. If it is not registered, it does not exist,” added the DA’s Desiree van der Walt.
”Pretoria is still Pretoria,” she said.
It was as if, on learning of the complaints to the BCCSA, the SABC out of ”spite” had purposefully begun to use the term Tshwane more and more, she charged.
The SABC, however, denied breaching the BCCSA code, maintaining that its use of the name Tshwane was not a distortion, an exaggeration or a misrepresentation.
There was nothing preventing the SABC from using the name prior to its approval by the minister of arts and culture, argued SABC counsel Omphemetse Mooki.
It was not unlawful, and consequently the BCCSA did not have authority to prevent the SABC from using the name Tshwane, he said, further arguing that use of the term fell within the right to freedom of expression.
”How is the use by the SABC of the name Tshwane in any way going to affect the decision-making by the South African Geographical Names Council?” Mooki asked.
It had not been suggested that the SABC was ”bending the ears” of the council by indicating there was a preferred recommendation it should make, he submitted.
Mooki contended that the area of Pretoria had also always been known as Tshwane, but ”simply by dint of history” had not enjoyed Pretoria’s significance.
It was like any other place name that indigenous South Africans had always known by a particular name other than the formal, official one, he said in May. — Sapa