Solidarity says the removal of its M1 banner was unlawful censorship after the city said no permit had been issued.
Solidarity yesterday served court papers on the City of Joburg and Gauteng premier Panyaza Lesufi about the alleged illegal removal of its banner on the M1 underpass close to the CBD.
However, the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department (JMPD) said the city’s outdoor advertising unit had never received an application to erect the banner.
City cites lack of approval for billboard
JMPD spokesperson Xolani Fihla said that outdoor advertising was controlled by the city’s bylaws and that “you need documented proof of ownership/consent, certified structural safety and formal approval from the outdoor advertising unit”.
He went on: “There has never been any advertising approved to utilise that specific section. Since no-one has been given approval to use that space, no company currently owns or rents it.”
The 70-metre-long orange billboard on the M1 South between Smit Street and Empire Road, welcomed leaders to the G20 summit, describing South Africa as the most racially regulated country in the world.
On Monday, Solidarity CEO Dirk Hermann said the space was legally rented by an advertising agency.
Claims of censorship
The billboard was removed shortly after Gauteng premier Panyaza Lesufi posted a photo of the Solidarity banner and captioned it, saying racists are loud and clear.
ALSO READ: G20 banner removed as Lesufi and Solidarity trade accusations of racism and censorship
Hermann argued that Solidarity followed all the rules and added that the advertising agency did not want to comment on the matter, although it may form part of a lawsuit against the city.
“All the rules were followed. The city council told the agency they did not like the message. The removal was not only unlawful, but also improper censorship.
“It is an evil day when a government can decide what can and cannot be said,” he said.
Solidarity defends billboard message
Solidarity head of international relations Jaco Kleynhans defended the billboard on X yesterday, saying it was paid advertising space and in no way propaganda.
“All approved. The message was factually correct and in no way propaganda. I don’t understand your thinking except for your hatred for Solidarity and AfriForum and our successful US liaison.”
Even as the contentious banner was being removed by the municipality, Solidarity had another illuminated one ready to go on a massive outdoor billboard.
ALSO READ: WATCH: ‘High treason charges ridiculous and baseless,’ says Solidarity
It said later that this had been turned off by the advertising company, along with a number of other similar executions, because of the “fear of vandalism”.
Advertising watchdog to review complaints
The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) confirmed complaints have been lodged against the banner.
ARB CEO Gail Schimmel confirmed the ARB had received complaints regarding the billboard and will be considering whether Clause 2.4 of the code on advertising applies.
“Section 2 defines our scope and really clarifies that the ARB is there for commercial advertising rather than political/policy statements and looks at the general principles that include offensive advertising, honesty and responsibility and unacceptable advertising, which include fear, violence and discrimination, truthful presentation, misleading claims, puffery and more.
“Section 4.1.1 also states that before advertising is published, advertisers must hold in their possession documentary evidence as set out in Clause 4.1 to support all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation.
“It further states in 4.1.3.2 that the accuracy of the claims based on the survey must be confirmed by a Samra accredited marketing researcher.”
NOW READ: G20 spinoffs will manifest down the line – experts
