Decisions for and against the media

In the Constitutional Court, the SABC was refused permission to broadcast the upcoming appeal hearing of businessman Schabir Shaik despite intense public interest in the case, but in the High Court Judge Suretta Snyders dismissed with costs an urgent interdict application brought against the Mail & Guardian by Maanda Manyatshe, the former CE of the SA Post Office (Sapo), and current head of MTN South Africa. Manyatshe last week sought to prevent the M&G from publishing a report detailing allegations of possible fraud, violations of tender rules, and contraventions of the Public Finance Management Act that took place while he was head of Sapo, says a report on the Mail & Guardian Online site. Manyatshe\'s legal team had argued that his rights to privacy, dignity and reputation should outweigh the M&G\'s right to free speech. Snyders disagreed, ruling that the media had a constitutional duty to assist in uncovering wrongdoing and bringing it to the attention of the public. Snyders said that the seriousness of the allegations against Manyatshe, his failure to give a proper response to the M&G or in his version to the court, and his public stature ‘persuades me of the reasonableness’ of publishing the exposé. Full Mail & Guardian Online report

The Freedom of Expression Institute welcomed the ruling, saying It should be a lesson for powerful institutions, which have discovered that it is easy to obtain interdicts against the media, ‘in the wake of the interdicts granted against the Mail and Guardian in its exposé on the controversial ‘Oilgate’ matter, and against various Sunday newspapers to stop them from publishing the Danish cartoons before they had even decided to do so’. It added: ‘Interdicts have become simply too easy to obtain against the media, and the urgent nature of the matters means that the issues and arguments often cannot be aired properly until the return date. We have become concerned by the seeming trend that judges assume that the applicants in these matters must have a valid case and they thus look favourably on the applicant\'s applications, at the expense of the rights of free expression of South Africans. It is an unhealthy and worrying trend, and we are pleased that Judge Snyders has bucked it.’ Press release

The Constitutional Court, however, considered the cause of ‘open justice’ was not enough to allow the SABC to broadcast the corruption appeal of Schabir Shaik, which begins next week. The SABC approached the court after the Supreme Court of Appeal refused it permission to broadcast the hearing, as its presence would interfere with the right of the parties to a fair hearing. In a majority judgment, the Constitutional Court ruled that the SCA was correct in asserting its right to regulate its own processes. Full judgment

The Freedom of Expression Institute noted its disappointment at the decision, saying it considered the judgment... ‘to be retrogressive for media freedom and open justice in SA’. It added, according to a report on the IoL site: ‘…the Constitutional Court did not attach sufficient weight to the importance of the media\'s right to free expression under section 16 of the Constitution, which includes the right to gather information, video footage and audio recordings for dissemination to the public.’ Full report on the IoL site