(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an 8 June 2000 FXI press statement: FXI QUESTIONS JUDGE KING’S DECISION The Freedom of the Expression of Institute is disappointed to note Justice King’s decision not to allow cameras and recording equipment into the commission of inquiry into allegations of match fixing. Although we sympathise with the Judge’s concern […]
(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an 8 June 2000 FXI press statement:
FXI QUESTIONS JUDGE KING’S DECISION
The Freedom of the Expression of Institute is disappointed to note Justice King’s decision not to allow cameras and recording equipment into the commission of inquiry into allegations of match fixing. Although we sympathise with the Judge’s concern regarding the possibility that the presence of electronic equipment may intimidate witnesses, we question his decision.
At a time when our courts are looking at the possibility of electronic coverage of their proceedings, King’s decision is inappropriate. The commission is addressing matters which are of crucial importance to the South African public and therefore every effort should be made to ensure a free flow of information. Although it may be argued that the press per se are not barred from the hearing and that information is not being stifled, we agree that the electronic media are the vehicle through which the majority of the population receive their information and that sound and images are therefore crucial. In addition there is an advantage to the witnesses when electronic equipment is present in that the witnessesâ words are recorded verbatim in that media. Therefore the use of electronic equipment should not be perceived as a threat but rather as an opportunity for the witnesses to set the record straight if they are indeed not guilty of the corrupt practices.
The precedent for the presence of cameras where an issue of public interest is concerned was established by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to no detriment of the witnesses. In fact if some of the really distressed witnesses in the TRC hearings could submit themselves to public scrutiny, it seems out of proportion to argue the necessity to protect witnesses in matters relating to corruption in sport.
FXI agrees that the Commission cannot allow the media to turn the hearing into a media circus, but at the same time we feel that if Judge King had been more receptive to the idea, he could well have limited the possible impact of the equipment on witnesses by ensuring that they were placed at a discreet distance. These kinds of negotiations with the press have positive spin-offs and ensure that there is a recognition of the importance of the press as a conduit for the free flow of information.
