SABC TV Licence battle

South Africa’s top brass tasked with reforming the South African Broadcasting Commission’s (SABC) financial position have been at loggerheads regarding a new piece of legislation deemed ineffective by the current communications minister.
The law in question is the SABC Bill introduced to parliament at the end of 2023 to replace the Broadcasting Act of 1999.
Among the features of the Broadcasting Act is the TV Licence, which was meant to help fund the SABC to allow it to deliver on its public service mandate.
However, a TV Licence revolt has financially crippled the SABC. Non-payment of the tax has risen nearly 20% over the past six years to 87% in 2024.
As a result, the SABC’s financial position became dire, and a solution was urgently required.
Despite parliament’s Portfolio Committee for Communications and Digital Technologies having worked on the SABC Bill for over a year, communications minister Solly Malatsi withdrew the Bill in early November last year.
The withdrawal was carried out in terms of subrule 1 of rule 277, which empowers ministers to withdraw legislation by writing to the speaker.
Malatsi’s action drew criticism and political backlash.
Former communications minister and now Malatsi’s deputy, Mondli Gungugubele, introduced the Bill and said it was a mistake to undo the years of work that led to this point.
The Parliamentary committee chairperson, Khusela Diko, also said the decision would “sound the death knell for the SABC.”
Gungubele and Diko are members of the ANC, while Malatsi is in the DA. Malatsi was appointed communications minister as part of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Government of National Unity (GNU).
After Malatsi announced that the Bill would be withdrawn, President Cyril Ramaphosa stripped ministers of the power to withdraw bills without first getting approval from him and Deputy President Paul Mashatile.
While DA leaders in the GNU claim that the decision cannot apply retroactively, the minister of the presidency, Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, disagrees.
This disagreement continued when Malatsi voiced his frustrations with National Assembly speaker Thoko Didiza, who had yet to gazette the Bill’s withdrawal after a month of the minister writing to her.
“It’s very clear that there is stalling from the Speaker’s office to withdraw the bill, which is extraordinary because that would be in violation of the very same rules she’s supposed to uphold,” he said.
Diko condemned these comments by saying that the criticism was unwarranted and unconstitutional.
However, Malatsi remains steadfast in his position, having said that he will explore legal avenues to reinforce the decision to withdraw the Bill.
“Any legal recourse, should it be required, would be aimed at ensuring adherence to parliamentary rules,” The minister’s spokesperson, Kwena Moloto, told MyBroadband.

While the ANC rejected the Bill’s withdrawal, the GNU’s DA members and many industry players agreed with Malatsi’s stance that it did not create a credible funding model for the SABC.
These included several broadcasting experts, former SABC executives, and media watchdogs such as Media Monitoring Africa and the SOS Support Public Broadcasting Coalition.
When asked whether Diko’s argument that parliament could amend the SABC Bill over time holds water, Media Monitoring Africa director William Bird said it was fundamentally flawed from the start.
He likened transforming the Bill into something useful to trying to turn a goat into a Ferrari.
Bird said the proposed law did nothing to address the SABC’s current funding crisis and did not offer new ideas.
The national coordinator of the SOS Support Public Broadcasting coalition, Uyanda Siyotula, echoed Bird’s support for the minister’s withdrawal of the Bill.
One reason for this was that the Bill would have been passed without finalising the audio and audiovisual content policy.
“We believe that this withdrawal will allow the audio and audiovisual content policy to be finalised before the SABC Bill is presented to Parliament,” she said.
Siyotula said she disagreed with Gungubele’s stance that the Bill should be passed and amended later because of the SABC’s financial position.
She argued that the Bill was “flawed to the core and needed proper consultation and redrafting, not an amendment.”