Supreme Court of Appeal grants Zuma and MKP leave to apeal against SABC
By Mathipa Phishego
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has granted Former President Jacob Zuma and his uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) leave to appeal, a High Court decision that dismissed their application against the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC).
At issue is the SABC’s continued use of the term Government of National Unity (GNU) to describe the post-election coalition administration.
That was formed earlier this year between the African National Congress (ANC), Democratic Alliance (DA), Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), and several smaller parties.
Zuma and the MK Party contend that the phrase misrepresents the nature of the current government and misleads the public by implying a consensus-based power-sharing agreement that includes all major political forces, which they argue is not the case.
Their initial application to the Gauteng High Court was dismissed in March 2025. With the court ruling that the SABC’s editorial decisions were within its constitutional rights and not subject to political interference.
The MK Party subsequently petitioned the SCA for leave to appeal. A request that has now been granted, opening the door for the matter to be reconsidered at a higher level.
In its brief ruling, the SCA stated that the appeal raises legal questions of public interest and constitutional relevance, warranting further judicial scrutiny.
MK Party welcomed the decision, calling it “a step toward media accountability and democratic clarity.”
Speaking to reporters outside the court, MKP spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndlela said, “the SABC’s terminology undermines the legitimacy of opposition parties and creates a false impression of unity that does not exist.”
SABC has maintained that its use of the term “Government of National Unity” reflects the terminology adopted by the ANC and its coalition partners. Aligned with historical references to the inclusive government model established after the 1994 elections.
The broadcaster has indicated it will oppose the appeal and defend its editorial independence. Media freedom advocates have expressed concern over the broader implications of the case.
Warning that attempts to police language used by journalists and broadcasters could amount to political overreach.The date for the appeal hearing has not yet been set.
But arguments are expected to be heard before the end of the year.
The outcome could set a precedent regarding, the rights of political parties to challenge language used in public discourse and the role of state media in a contested political environment.
