Judgment in the court matter between the uMkhonto weSizwe Party and the SABC was reserved on Monday by the Gauteng High Court sitting in Johannesburg.
The MK Party is seeking to stop the public broadcaster from referring to the collective coalition government as the Government of National Unity (GNU).
Former President Jacob Zuma has argued that the SABC as a public institution has a unique responsibility and cannot peddle false, inaccurate, and politically biased narratives to describe the current political arrangement.
He previously indicated that the seventh administration constitutes a grand coalition between the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the African National Congress (ANC).
In court, Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing the party, argued that a requirement for a GNU is that parties represent 85% to 90% of the electorate to form part of government.
Mpofu said two major parties representing approximately 25% of the electorate - the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) - were excluded as a pre-condition by the DA.
“This is because, the Government of National Unity (GNU) brings all political parties together which would have to include the EFF and the MK Party which it did not. These parties were excluded.
“But it still gave President the fig leaf he needed to bring in all sort of smaller parties. The truth is that we are actually in a coalition because the coalition says if a party withdraws from it, the government fails,’ he stated.
Judge Denise Carol Fisher urged Mpofu to prove how the use of the term infringes any provisions of the constitution.
“Your starting point is to tell me which constitutional right is infringed upon....You say the use of GNU (is an) affront to human dignity on your client because they are not part of the unified mass,’ she said.
Regarding the alternative review relief, the SABC contends that the “decision” is not reviewable under PAJA (promotion of Administrative Justice Act), and if it is, internal remedies have not been followed.
The public broadcaster further contends also that there is no basis for a legal review. In its heads of argument, and in oral argument, the SABC also raised the point that the applicants had not filed a notice in terms of Rule 16A.