Court Order Forces Broadcasters to Air DA Election Ads

High Court ruling tests broadcaster duties and ICASA's election oversight

By Ayanda Phiri Published October 29, 2026

With less than a week before the municipal polls, the Democratic Alliance has secured a High Court order compelling broadcasters that previously declined to air its election adverts to run them, a ruling that puts the legal obligations of broadcasters and the oversight role of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) squarely in question.

The order requires the offending broadcasters to run the party’s adverts in the remaining unallocated time slots and to prove they have done so. Within 24 hours of airing the adverts, the stations must submit transmission logs and recordings as evidence of compliance.

At the centre of the dispute sits the 40-second public election broadcast, which the DA said some stations refused to play. The party turned to the High Court after ICASA failed to intervene, according to the DA.

Ashor Sarupen, the party’s Federal Council chairperson, said the failure by multiple broadcasters to honour their legal obligations could not be left unchallenged. The missed broadcasts, he argued, have deprived South African voters of the opportunity to fairly assess the parties contesting the election.

The court action also carries regulatory consequences. Sarupen noted that broadcasters who failed to comply face punitive action from ICASA, the authority responsible for ensuring fair coverage during elections.

“It is deeply unfortunate that in every election, the DA is forced to approach the courts to secure equal broadcasting opportunities to which we are lawfully entitled in some or other form,” Sarupen said in remarks quoted by the party. Electoral fairness, he added, could not depend on whether broadcasters choose to comply with the law, and the DA should not have to fight court battles simply to secure the airtime allocated to it.

By contrast with the regulator’s inaction, the judiciary has now become the enforcement avenue. The case underscores the tension between the statutory duties placed on broadcasters during election periods and the capacity of the regulatory framework to enforce them, days before voters go to the polls.

Whether ICASA now acts against the non-compliant stations, and how the broadcasters meet the 24-hour proof deadline, will test the framework in the closing stretch of the campaign.

Key takeaways

The High Court has compelled non-compliant broadcasters to air the DA's election adverts and to prove compliance with transmission logs and recordings within 24 hours.
The ruling exposes ICASA's oversight failure, since the regulator did not intervene before the DA turned to the courts.
Broadcasters that ignored their legal obligations face possible punitive action from ICASA, the authority charged with ensuring fair election coverage.
Ashor Sarupen, DA Federal Council chairperson, argued the missed broadcasts deprived voters of a fair chance to assess contesting parties.
The case highlights tension between broadcasters' statutory election duties and the regulatory framework's capacity to enforce them.
Whether ICASA acts against the stations and how broadcasters meet the 24-hour deadline will test the framework in the campaign's closing stretch.

Q&A

What does the High Court order require of the broadcasters?

It requires the broadcasters that declined to air the DA's election adverts to run them in the remaining unallocated time slots and to prove compliance by submitting transmission logs and recordings within 24 hours of airing the adverts.

Why did the DA go to court instead of relying on ICASA?

According to the DA, ICASA failed to intervene when some stations refused to play the 40-second public election broadcast, so the party turned to the High Court to secure the airtime it says it is lawfully entitled to.

What regulatory consequences could follow for non-compliant stations?

Ashor Sarupen noted that broadcasters who failed to comply face punitive action from ICASA, the authority responsible for ensuring fair coverage during elections.

What broader governance issue does the ruling highlight?

It underscores the tension between the statutory duties placed on broadcasters during election periods and the capacity of the regulatory framework to enforce them, with the judiciary becoming the enforcement avenue after the regulator's inaction.