The ruling African National Congress calls for media tribunal have been rejected by many on the basis of the existence of the National Press Ombudsman which is a media self regulatory body in South Africa mandated by various media houses to be the watchdog of those practicing journalism profession in the country.

On the other end, the ruling party has argued that self regulation is not adequate to safe guard against the rights of individuals who often find themselves making headlines news for all sorts of unbecoming allegations.

Both those who are for and against the introduction of the media tribunal base their arguments on two common things save to say interpreted differently by either side to suit their arguments, those are constitution and democracy.

Those that are arguing for the media tribunal, advance the argument that journalists abuse the constitutional right to freedom of expression and press freedom to trample over the individual's right to privacy and dignity, whilst those who are argue that media tribunal amounts to censorship of the media claims that their right to freedom of expression and freedom of press will be circumvent in order to protect the rich and powerful.

Equally those who support the call for media tribunal have argued that the media in South Africa is not patriotic and is not working to support South Africa's young democracy, but has in fact taken the role of the state's enemy committed to work against the success of the state and our young democracy.

The media houses and all those against the media tribunal have argued that the media tribunal is in itself a tool to circumvent democracy and will curb investigative journalism thereby letting those charged with governance get away with murder when they err without enabling the public to hold them accountable which is against the principles of democracy and robs the nation the prospects of building a successful state.

In order to make an informed decision on whether the call for the introduction of the media tribunal is appropriate or not, one has to interrogate the arguments put forward by both the proponents of the media tribunal and those against it. Further on effectiveness of the current press Ombudsman to ensure that principles of good journalism are adhered to and that appropriate deterrent punishment where necessary are sanctioned will have to be reviewed as well, and also review the role of played by the media in supporting democracy and the state post apartheid.

It will be equally important to review and understand the ruling party's conference resolution that led to the current debate on media tribunal so as to understand what informed the ruling party to take such a resolution, that is important as it will provide a better understanding of whether the intention of the ruling party is one of enhancing democracy or one informed by the desire to prevent accountability of the state to the public.

Lets now look at the role played by the media prior December 2007 where the ruling African National Congress took the resolution on media tribunal, to get a proper sense of what would have been some of the elements within the media which worried the ruling party to resolve on such a resolution, as well as the media's role in the recent past which have resuscitated the call for the implementation of the resolution.

The period between 2005 and 2007 which characterized the build up to the Polokwane conference of the ruling party was in terms of the media space dominated by the corruption trial of both Shabir Shaik and the then Deputy President of the ANC comrade Jacob Zuma as well as the much publicized AIDS denialism by the Mbeki administration which saw the then Minister of Health Dr Manto Tshabalala Msimang making headlines week-in and week-out.

The review of this period and the manner in which the media went about covering this stories have more often than not created an impression that the media is the law unto itself and it can do and publish anything on the basis of information received from "unknown reliable sources" to the detriment of the person, character and integrity of their subjects without any limitations and without the offended persons having any recourse against the media houses that carries defamatory stories about them.

In this regard in line with the two selected examples above, one is reminded of the stealing of the former Minister of Health's health records and their subsequent publishing by one of the major publications in the country, equally so one is reminded of the manner in which, based on the outcomes of the court case against Shabir Shaik, the then ANC deputy president was found guilty by the media and the perpetuated headlines which suggested that he was guilty until he proves himself innocent which is contrary to the spirit of the law which promulgates innocence until proven guilty.

Now let's then look at how the ombudsman dealt with the above cases in question and the workings of the ombudsman. The press ombudsman functions from reactionary point as it awaits the offended person to first lay a charge with them before they act (or at least their functioning in recent times suggests so), if the victim of the press does not come forward to complain to the ombudsman, the ombudsman does not take a proactive action against journalists or media houses.

This poses a problem as it renders both the adequacy and the effectiveness of the ombudsman redundant and makes it less effective as a deterrent to irresponsible and unprincipled reporting by the media. For the ombudsman to be effective, the ombudsman would be expected to regularly monitor the behaviour of the press and regularly take journalists to task on unprincipled reporting to ensure that journalists are not only motivated by selling stories which are unfounded and defamatory and against the principles of enhancement of democracy and nation building.

Whilst one accepts that the media is not expected to be patriotic, but rather to report without fear or favour, and that the media tribunal can't be about how the rich and powerful are treated by the media as some have suggested, it is important to acknowledge that it is common cause that the power of the media is immeasurable in terms of shaping public opinion on any matter, consequently the malicious, negative and unfounded reporting on government, politicians and other leaders in society affects how the rest of us as a society relates to our own country and commit to the project of nation building.

It goes without saying that if the media project the government as a failing institution, and all leaders in society as helpless and thieves, the moral of the society at large will continue to be dampened thereby delaying the speed of the race to the achievement of the dreams of our fore fathers who gathered in Kliptown in 1955.

Post Polokwane, our own media houses have continued to cover the story of the current President of the ANC in similar lines of pronouncing him guilty until proven innocent, this has even continued beyond the case that was dropped by the National Prosecution Authority.

The media has continued to run with many stories about the ministers and senior politicians which are based on unfounded allegations, the recent ones being the story on Mathews Phosa's involvement in a power struggle with the Deputy President of the ANC Kgalema Monthlante, and the reports on the alleged involvement of the ANC YL president Julius Malema in the fraudulent tender awards in Limpopo, fortunately Mathews Phosa did go to the Ombudsman which acted on his complaint and the Newspaper ended up offering an apology seven months after they published the story and after seven months of damaged public image and integrity.

The allegations made by the media about Julius Malema were tested by the Public Protector and he was found innocent of all spurious charges around tenders awarded, whilst all this vilification and trial by media was happening the Media Ombudsman did nothing to protect the person of Julius Malema. As we know Media Ombudsman is reactionary and only acts when it receives a complaint.

Also South Africa having been granted the rights to host the 2010 FIFA world cup, our very own media had been found to be leading the stories which shaped opinion around the world on South Africa being an unsafe country, being not ready and incapable of holding such an event successfully, which was highly unpatriotic and unsupportive of the young democratic state.

Now let's turn our attention to the African National Congress as the ruling party that is intending to implement a media tribunal to regulate the media, in the period same period as referred above the ANC and/or its members have subjected themselves to the rule of Law and have never defied the outcomes of the courts, save to say that certain statements were made by its leaders which undermines the courts. This relates to the State as well, the State has always abided by the outcomes of the Courts both those which were favourable and unfavourable.

This is an indication that the ANC and the ANC led government will always abide by the law and this indicate that there is no justification in assuming that once the media tribunal is in place the ANC nor its government will not be subject itself to the rule of Law. This suggests that those who are screaming aloud that the ANC wants to curtail media freedom are alarmists and opportunistically want to retain the status quo where the media reports anything and everything without regard for the constitutional rights of those they report about.

Lastly, it is also important to note that the behaviour of the media in the recent past does not encourage self regulation in the industry, if we look at the pronouncements of the ANC YL spokesperson in relation to one journalist, which indicated that a journalist was being paid to write stories about particular individuals as well as the self confession by a Cape Argus journalist that he was paid by the Western Cape former Premier to write particular stories about his opponents in the ANC and how the Ombudsman reacted to this? One can only conclude that the Ombudsman is toothless and ineffective as a regulatory body.

One would have expected that the allegations and information in possession of the ANC YL spokesperson would have been investigated and tested by the Ombudsman in order to ensure the integrity of Journalism, instead journalist formed a mob against the ANC YL spokesperson to oppose any attempts to expose one of them, the same expectation would stand with regard to the Cape Argus journalist, one would have expected some stiff action to have been taken against the journalist by the Ombudsman.

The fact that no action was taken makes you to wonder about the role and the agenda of the press Ombudsman. Does the Ombudsman care if the media is committed to truth, veracity and common good? Or is it just a body aimed at ring fencing the special privileged businesses run by faceless oligarchists with particular agenda to shape the world as they want? In the light of the in depth analysis above one is left convinced that the ANC makes a case for the introduction of the media tribunal.

Ramukumba Khathu is a member of the ANC YL in Sakhisizwe Branch in Ekurhuleni Region, he writes in his personal capacity

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter