Look, this is all very simple.  Not once have the child molestation allegations been presented on wikipedia as anything other than an investigation that, to everyone's knowledge, has not led to formal charges.  If you, or anyone else, want to edit the page to elaborate on the matter, saying, "Due to the fact that no evidence can be found that the investigations of Mr. Fitch resulted in formal charges, the veracity of the allegations is very much called into question.", then guess what?  THAT'S FINE!  That's both factual and quite possibly the most accurate portrayal of the truth, to everyone's knowledge, I would assume.

But you know what else is factual?  That SABC claimed that he was a child molester.  If SABC lied about that, don't you think people ought to know so the status of the case against him?  That no formal charges have been brought against him?  And not only to possibly vindicate Mr. Fitch in the eyes of those who would have normally assumed that he was guilty, but also to possibly diminish the reputation of SABC for accusing him of such a serious crime?

I really don't see any way to justify the removal of the material, however.  To my knowledge, it doesn't become libel until you claim or suggest that SABC was correct.  I also cannot imagine why anyone would not agree to the middle-ground approach, which is to add the "no formal charges" comment in order to balance the material.