The BCCSA found that the complainant's dignity and privacy were impaired and that the broadcaster breached several clauses of the subscription television broadcasting code, including a failure to uphold and protect the interest of the children involved who were identified by Moja Love and Pay Papgeld and then got taunted by others.
No Excuses: Pay Papgeld is produced for Moja Love by 3rd Strand Media.
No Excuses: Pay Papgeld is produced for Moja Love by 3rd Strand Media.
The BCCSA initially dismissed the complaint against an episode of the show that does doorstop confrontation interviews with people allegedly not paying child maintenance and that was broadcast on 17 November 2018 on DStv and repeatedly broadcast several times after that. The complainant, with the help of a lawyer, appealed the decision with the appeal that was then upheld.
Thamsanqa Sibisi complained to the BCCSA after producers of No Excuses: Pay Papgeld showed up at his house and even before the episode was to be broadcast on Moja Love, pleading with the BCCSA to prevent Moja Love from broadcasting the episode after a promo was shown, saying "my name and the names of my wife and stepson are not hidden, that includes our faces and place of residence".
He also said that "I have not defaulted in terms of the maintenance court order that was instituted. That can be proven".
He pleaded with the BCCSA to "please stop this from being shown on TV" and that "My family and I are due to be directly violated with malicious intent. Our characters will be violated too. I do not mean for you to be a censorship structure."
He said "we are pleading with you to deter or stop this airing because it will violate our characters publicly. I would accept if I was in default of the maintenance court order."
The episode was however broadcast on Moja Love and repeated several times.
Thamsanqa Sibisi, a teacher, told the BCCSA that he just arrived at home from work when he saw people jumping over a recently dug-up foundation into his yard. "At this time there were many cameras and TV recording equipment in our yard and I was overwhelmed!"
"I tried to keep my cool and hear what they were here to say. But, in the background, not far from me, I could hear my ex-wife's voice. She was shouting profanities as the show's presenter was trying to ask me questions and engage me."
"I tried to answer by asking the presenter if they had done their homework before coming to me with their crew like they did. He clearly responded that they had not done so. No documents were seen from my ex-wife to prove that I was really not maintaining my children. We continued to argue."
"I then told them to leave our yard because they had not done their homework first. Mind you there are standing current court orders to that effect which state exactly how much must be paid for which children."
He told the BCCSA "Who are they that they come to our home and block the gate with their vehicle, the white H1 with no registration plates? I could have easily thought of them as hijackers on the day" and that "They never used the gate to enter our home, but jumped over a wall that was being built".
"There are standing court orders which we currently comply with. Hence the reason for me asking the presenter, Moss Makwati, if he had checked bank statements and verify them with or against her bank statements."
'Level of sensationalism by the broadcaster'
Moja Love told the BCCSA that Moja Love "made reasonable efforts to give the viewer an opportunity to state his positions" that it refers to multiple times erroneously as mister "Sibande". The channel argued that "What was difficult for the crew to handle was that all the violence and vitriol was aimed at the complainant, a single mother".
The BBCSA in its tribunal judgment said that the Pay Papgeld confrontation broadcast on Moja Love "was chaotic and was coupled with an altercation between the co-parent, the host of the show, the appellant's current wife and the appellant."
"Immediately from this clip, it was evident that there was a level of sensationalism by the broadcaster, prior to even getting into the merits of the alleged non-payment of child maintenance by the appellant."
The BCCSA in its judgment said that the Pay Papgeld presenter "stated that the appellant took advantage of the co-parent while she was at a tender age. This statement by the host was made as fact and was not presented in a way that suggested that it was just an allegation".
"The co-parent stated that the appellant, after abandoning her and their children, constantly resigned from work with the sole purpose of avoiding to pay child maintenance."
"The co-parent alleged further that the appellant would then claim his resignation packages and squander the funds with his current wife. The appellant's current wife was then portrayed by the co-parent as being an old traditional healer (isangoma) who snatched the co-parent's husband and threatened the co-parent's life."
"The host then alluded to this allegation and called on the department of justice to take action against fathers who repeatedly resign from work with the sole purpose of avoiding to pay child maintenance."
"Further allegations were made by the co-parent against the appellant regarding his sexual activities, alleging that the appellant's brother hinted to the co-parent that the appellant is not 'well'."
"In commentary, the host then stated 'You should be careful that you don't go picking up things from the street and bringing them home with you, it's clear that the ex-wife's life has no peace, I mean this can't be good for his health or his spirit."
"This, together with all the other allegations evidently had nothing to do with the maintenance of the children," the BCCSA found.
"There was only approximately 2 minutes spent by the co-parent talking about the pertinent issue of child maintenance, out of approximately 11 minutes (with commentary from the host) speaking on collateral issues. The majority of time was spent thoroughly portraying the appellant as a devious and irresponsible man," the BCCSA commissioner Nokubonga Fakude, said.
The BCCSA said "it is clear that the reputation and dignity of the appellant was greatly impaired. The reasonable viewer would conclude that the appellant is an irresponsible parent who abandoned his children. He is violent and is promiscuous."
"It is clear that the appellant's dignity was subjectively and objectively impaired. Actual prejudice was suffered by the Appellant as a result of the show. The broadcaster has thus contravened clause 28.4 of the Code," the BCCSA said.
The BCCSA said Moja Love's No Excuses: Pay Papgeld "left it to the appellant to disprove allegations that were made by the co-parent with the help of the host of the show. The co-parent's version was taken religiously and the broadcaster attempted to veil this by proclaiming that the appellant was given the right to reply".
"The broadcaster's submission that the appellant was given the right to reply is flawed," the BCCSA found, saying "The appellant's dignity was thoroughly impaired throughout the show".
Moja Love 'failed to uphold and protect the interest of the children involved'
"The appellant was subjected to a predicament he had no choice in being part of, but because he, after being ambushed at his home, reacted with emotion and refused to reply after the fact; he was then construed to be the author of his own misfortune. Under the circumstances, this reasoning is not justifiable,' the BCCSA found in its tribunal judgment.
"The opportunity to reply that Moja Love alleges was given to him was used to camouflage the damage that was already done. The broadcaster cannot be given credit for creating a conundrum for the appellant, and then placing the burden on him to rectify the situation in the guise of affording the right to reply."
"As such, the broadcaster has contravened clauses 28.3.1 and 28.3.2 of the code. The appellant showed to the members of the Tribunal that he is paying child maintenance and that there are court orders in this regard."
The BCCSA tribunal found that Moja Love and No Excuses: Pay Papgeld "failed to uphold and protect the interests of the children involved. Instead, the very same children the show sought to assist ended up being taunted by their peers after their names and identities were revealed on the show and their parents portrayed negatively".
"The premise of the episode was largely flawed and had very little to do with the protection of children. The best interest of the children in question was not observed," the BCCSA said in its judgment.
