The lawyer for beleaguered South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) Group Executive for Corporate Affairs, Hlaudi Motsoeneng, called on the Western Cape High Court on Thursday to address the fact that the Democratic Alliance (DA) had likened him to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels.

Advocate Andy Bester said “to call Mr Motsoeneng a Nazi, its very offensive, to call a black man a Nazi in the South African context, is something this court should address”.

Bester was arguing on the second day of hearings into an application brought by the Democratic Alliance to have his re-appointment in September declared invalid and the outcome of a disciplinary inquiry into his fitness to hold office set aside.

The DA believes he should not be in any senior position at the public broadcaster and have described him as a threat to South African democracy.

In court papers, he is described as a “modern day Goebbels who treats the public broadcaster as his personal fiefdom to spread propaganda”.

In the DA’s main application, Advocate Anton Katz SC, told the court on Wednesday that they sought to have Motsoeneng removed from the SABC entirely.

“We say he can’t be there at all. Far reaching cases call for far reaching remedy,” Katz said.

“This is a battle about legality, not about getting votes in the next election. When it comes to the principle of legality, the courts are obliged to enter the arena.”

In September, it was determined that Motsoeneng could not be Chief Operating Officer, but later that month he was given a new five-year contract as head of corporate affairs.

Katz said it was a new contract with his old salary and while he sounded like a “stuck record”, he had been in court for two and a half years.

“When you tell a lie, you must be careful that the lie is consistent. The entire bang shoot is a lie. You are talking about Alice in Wonderland.”

On Thursday morning, Advocate Bester said there was no basis to terminate Motsoeneng’s employment while certain issues are pending – he said the ad hoc committee in Parliament that has instituted an inquiry, into the SABC board must first come to its conclusions, a new disciplinary hearing must be held, and the review of the Public Protector’s report must be finalised.

Advocate Stephan du Toit SC, acting for the SABC, said “on the one hand the Public Protector’s findings are immutable, on the other hand he is entitled to a fair disciplinary hearing” and therefore the SABC faced a dilemma.

He argued that you cannot start a disciplinary with a finding of guily.

“We regard this as unfair”.

Former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s 2014 report found that Motsoeneng had been dishonest and had misrepresented his matric qualifications, had irregularly increased his own salary, purged the broadcaster of senior staff and abused his powers.