This open letter was inspired by Martin Jansen, coordinator of the Peoples Media Consortium, who wrote to me asking deep questions about these debates. I am a member of the Consortium and of Media Justice Afrika, both of which support the spirit of this letter, but I pen it in my own name to avoid delays.
The Facebook page of the Cape South African Jewish Board of Deputies (Cape SAJBD) announced that, in partnership with broadcaster eNCA, it would host a live local elections debate on 18 October 2026. The broadcast was titled We The Nation: Election Edition, yet it left out a number of electoral groups that would lay claim to being part of the nation. These groups would prefer that economic freedom and international solidarity, in particular with Palestine, be integral to our conception of who we are as South Africans.
That this came one day before Black Wednesday, which commemorates the struggles of South African civil society against media censorship, is shameful. We all recall that 19 October 1977 is commemorated nationally as National Press Freedom Day. On that day the apartheid regime banned The World and Weekend World and detained journalists and activists without trial under the Internal Security Act, including The World editor Percy Qoboza. It also outlawed 19 Black Consciousness Movement organisations, including the Black People’s Convention (BPC) and the South African Students’ Organisation (SASO), just weeks after Steve Biko was murdered in police detention.
Fast forward to the Cape Town mayoral debate on 18 October 2026. It featured only the DA (Geordin Hill-Lewis), the ANC (Jerimia Thuynsma), the FF Plus (Dr Corné Mulder) and the ACDP (Felon Christians). The Patriotic Alliance (PA) was invited and its representative, Cheslin Daniels, arrived at the venue, but the party withdrew shortly before the broadcast. Notably absent were parties such as the EFF, which typically advance the issues of economic freedom and international solidarity, including Palestine, that I believe should be integral to our conception of who we are as South Africans.
The full programme can be found here as it was broadcast: https://www.enca.com/shows-videos/we-nation-election-edition-18-october-2026
From viewing the programme, I saw that the host raised a number of important issues for voters. She is Jenna-Leigh Bilong (@ladybilong), described as a television news anchor, radio presenter and pastor, whose profiles say she has “a gift for sharing truth with grace, clarity and authenticity.” She admitted upfront that the broadcast, in partnership with the Cape SAJBD, would not feature all the parties and that those present did not represent all. It was clear that this was “an editorial decision” for which eNCA must be held fully accountable.
Important issues for (some) voters
Firstly, this broadcast violates the right to freedom of expression in our Bill of Rights. It also violates the guidelines and principles of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA) and the Independent Electoral Commission’s (IEC) code of conduct. It begs the question: why were the EFF, Al Jama-ah and the GOOD party, which did so well in the last local government elections, excluded?
A few human rights organisations asked why parties like the African National Congress (ANC) would participate in a debate hosted by an organisation with diametrically opposed views on Palestine, particularly on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel.
The ANC has for years prided itself on being a leader of society, and at times praises the government for its leading role in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) case. But it would equally argue that it has an obligation to unite society and, I presume, that is why it participated. These ideas are plausible and I will not engage them, suffice it to say that once the debate was broadcast on a free-to-air channel, it ceased to be a private event in which organisers could do as they pleased. If the ANC’s role as a leader of society, and thus an upholder of constitutional values, was to be honoured, it was obliged to insist that the excluded parties be included.
The Cape SAJBD and eNCA have hosted such debates before. On 14 April 2019, at the Century City Conference Centre, eNCA’s Jeremy Maggs moderated a debate that included the GOOD party but excluded others, such as the EFF. On 19 May 2024, the partnership with eNCA was hosted by Prof Onkgopotse JJ Tabane, and again included GOOD but excluded the EFF. The ANC did not participate in that debate, I recall because of issues related to the venue and to Palestine, but I may be wrong.
According to the Cape SAJBD’s website, the debate co-hosted with eNCA on Sunday, 10 October 2021, was held at the Investec offices, with eNCA’s Sally Burdett as host. The usual suspects were there: the DA, GOOD, FF Plus, ACDP and ANC. Those excluded were, in particular, the EFF.
Secondly, the fact that this has happened over the past few years does not mean that constitutional rights and the fair play rules society lives by have not been violated.
We are obliged to look at the 2021 local government election results in the Western Cape, with Cape Town at the core, to determine who the contenders could be. We all know that the Democratic Alliance (DA) performed best, retaining control of the City of Cape Town with an absolute majority, though its vote share declined compared with the previous term. The ANC remained the official opposition, while the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) became the third-largest party in Cape Town with 10 seats. GOOD won 9 seats, and the newly participating Cape Coloured Congress (CCC) won 7. Al Jama-ah performed poorly, winning 3 seats with a vote share of approximately 1.19% (proportional representation votes), making it a minor party in the council.
Thus, in this recent debate, on results alone, the EFF, CCC and GOOD have a greater claim to a seat at the table than the ACDP, FF Plus and the Patriotic Alliance. The PA polled low in the Cape Town council in 2021 but has shown significant growth since. These issues are complex and not a perfect science.
The only conclusion I can draw is that eNCA was clearly not in this solely for a limited debate that would advance free speech. This must have been a lucrative financial arrangement. Would I be accused of antisemitism for asking the SAJBD in the Cape how much they paid for this partnership? If it is not a question to ask them, I believe eNCA is free to answer, as it cannot label the question antisemitic. Will it?
Thirdly, I can only conclude that the exclusion of the EFF, judged solely on the numbers and leaving aside its drama and antics in Parliament during its early years, means it should have been at the table.
It is clear that the EFF was excluded on political and ideological grounds, a position strongly held by the DA, which opposes the EFF for both its content and its style. This is the reason the DA gave publicly for wanting a Government of National Unity: to keep out the EFF.
My appeal is therefore directed to the ANC. I remind it of what Rosa Luxemburg wrote: that freedom exclusively for government supporters or a single party is not freedom at all, but a special privilege, concluding that “freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.”
If the ANC refused on principled grounds, it begs the question whether this partnership, as it currently stands, can host free-to-air debates about democratic participation and inclusion while making editorial choices that violate both the letter and the spirit of the BCCSA and IEC guidelines. I think the guidelines and the law speak for all the other parties that will be participating, and go further than I have argued.
The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) and the BCCSA state that election coverage by free-to-air and subscription broadcasters must be:
“Equitable” does not mean “equal”
Under Section 59 of the Electronic Communications Act (ECA) and the ICASA Municipal Election Broadcasts and Political Advertisements Regulations, broadcasters are required to provide equitable coverage to contesting political parties.
During elections, the BCCSA generally defers matters of political party airtime and systemic fairness to ICASA. The IEC also has a role, as I have pointed out.
I accept the argument that with so many parties participating, a debate could be unwieldy and make poor broadcasting. But there must be a fair process, not simply a statement that other parties are not there, as was made on Sunday, 18 October. That is unjust and unconstitutional.
Excluding real contenders in this election violates the conditions for free and fair elections set out in the Electoral Act. Its Electoral Code of Conduct aims to promote “conditions that are conducive to free and fair elections” and to create a climate of tolerance, free political campaigning and open public debate.
The way forward
The major parties excluded from these debates, like the EFF, have the whole election period in which to have their say. But the guideline that a broadcaster’s overall coverage must be balanced, so that a broad range of political voices is heard, must be met, and fairness must be seen and heard, as a matter of urgency. Two weeks remain for eNCA to do the right thing in the public interest.
Hassen Lorgat, is a media justice activist
The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of IOL