Veteran SABC news anchor and contributing editor, Vuyo Mvoko, was not mentioned in the SABC statement on Wednesday reinstating seven axed journalists, suggesting his fight for the enforcement of his contract continues.
This, after a day of drama in which the SABC initially informed four of the journalists, who had won a Labour Court order for their reinstatement, that they would not be allowed to return to work as it would appeal the judgment, only to announce later it had instructed its lawyers to drop the appeal and that all seven dismissed journalists would get their jobs back.
The surprise announcement came after a sit-in by Right2Know activists at the broadcaster’s Auckland Park headquarters and pre-empted a hearing on Thursday in which the remaining three of the seven were to challenge their dismissal.
Mvoko was not a full-time SABC employee, working on contract as a contributing editor.
His was the eighth head to roll in the wake of internal resistance to the SABC’s decision not to broadcast footage of violent protests, which was later extended to include criticism of the decision itself and of President Zuma.
Mvoko’s lawyers, meanwhile, say in their heads of argument he did not bring the public broadcaster into disrepute by criticising its ban on footage of violent protests, but was in fact protecting it.
Referring to an article penned by Mvoko and published by Independent Newspapers in which he described the dire conditions in which journalists worked at the SABC under Motsoeneng and other bosses, his lawyers say he did not so much bring it into disrepute as “regretting the disrepute into which conduct of certain individuals had already brought the institution”.
He had criticised Motsoeneng, former group chief executive Jimi Matthews and former news head Snuki Zikalala “for their perversion of the SABC’s mission.
“The SABC’s mission is to inform, not censor,” Mvoko’s lawyers say in their heads of argument.
Mvoko has applied in the Johannesburg High Court for the enforcement of his contract as contributing editor after the SABC said he would no longer be used to produce programmes until their dispute was settled.
He was accused of breaching his contract by bringing the SABC into disrepute, but his lawyers argue that, as a journalist, he has a constitutional right to freedom of expression which a contract cannot override.
In his responding affidavit, SABC general manager, news special events, Simon Tebele, argues that in terms of the contract Mvoko would be used “as and when it is required” and for the court to order that he be scheduled would amount to it telling the public broadcaster which programmes to use and who should present them.
The article was “clearly adverse comment” about the SABC and it had a right to protect its reputation, regardless of whether any of its decisions had been right or wrong.
But Mvoko’s lawyers say the management is confusing itself with the institution and Mvoko’s criticism of Motsoeneng can only be taken as extending to the whole organisation “if Mr Motsoeneng regards himself as the embodiment of the SABC”.
As a journalist, Mvoko had a constitutional mandate to facilitate the exercise of the rights of other citizens by keeping them informed.
He was also fulfilling the role of the public broadcaster by informing the public of the “malevolent roles of the senior leadership of the SABC” and by offering a critical perspective on a policy which encouraged censorship.
“In short, Mr Mvoko was acting in the public interest,” his lawyers argue.
Mvoko’s matter will be argued in the High Court in Johannesburg on Thursday. The ANC, after criticising the SABC’s policy, the dismissal of the journalists and even Motsoeneng’s controversial appointment, has left it to Parliament’s communications oversight committee to tackle the matter after the August 3 elections.