(FXI/IFEX) – The following is a 26 April 2004 FXI press release: FXI RELEASES THIRD REPORT ON STATE OF MEDIA FREEDOM IN SOUTH AFRICA The Anti-Censorship Programme (ACP) of the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) has released its third six monthly report highlighting censorship activities and other violations of the right to freedom of expression […]
(FXI/IFEX) – The following is a 26 April 2004 FXI press release:
FXI RELEASES THIRD REPORT ON STATE OF MEDIA FREEDOM IN SOUTH AFRICA
The Anti-Censorship Programme (ACP) of the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) has released its third six monthly report highlighting censorship activities and other violations of the right to freedom of expression in South Africa.
In the report, the ACP notes that there has been a continuing rise in the demand for its intervention on a wide range of matters, a fact that should not be surprising given the increasing levels of conflict between the state on the one hand, and individuals on the other. This intervention now spans a whole range of areas including legal support, publicity and expert submissions.
The report states that one of the ACP’s most significant interventions in 2003 related to the Hefer Commission of Inquiry into spying allegations against the National Director of Public Prosecutions Mr. Bulelani Ngcuka. Right from the start of the commission, the ACP defended the right of journalists not to be subpoenaed to give evidence at the inquiry save as a matter of last resort and only after all other avenues had been tried and exhausted. Ranjeni Munusamy, a former senior reporter for one of South Africa’s weeklies, the Sunday Times, had been subpoenaed to appear before the commission and give evidence but she declined to do so and instead appealed against the move. The matter first went to the Supreme Court of Appeal, where it was dismissed, and Ms. Munusamy decided to approach the Constitutional Court for redress. FXI, alongside other media lobby groups, has remained actively involved with the case and is one of the amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the application.
Legislative reform remains one of the key areas of concern and the report notes that the ACP is gearing itself to launch a campaign to address the censorious laws still existing in South Africa’s statute books. The programme aims to embark on two major legal challenges to laws that violate the right to freedom of expression. The first one relates to the on-going Ranjeni Munusamy case mentioned above, while the second will be a Constitutional Court challenge against the apartheid era Regulation of Gatherings Act (No 205 of 1993). This Act has become a tool of choice for local authorities and police to frustrate individuals and organisations deemed “radical” from enjoying their right to peaceful assembly and demonstration.
The report notes with concern that censorship activities are still on the rise, especially in relation to individuals and organisations embarking on popular forms of expression. For instance, it highlights a recent case where the state, without legitimate reasons, prohibited a peaceful demonstration planned by the Anti-Privatisation Forum in Johannesburg. When the Forum’s members went ahead with the march in spite of the ban, 57 of them were arrested and arraigned in court. In a similar vein, the programme is dealing with a matter where state doctors marched to Parliament in Cape Town during its opening on March 6 2004 under a cloud of harassment and intimidation by the government. Soon afterwards, the National Department of Health is alleged to have issued a circular to all its provincial departments asking for the names of the doctors who participated in the march.
In addition, the report details a matter where, once again, the South African Human Rights Commission has declared utterances allegedly made by a leader of the Landless Peoples’ Movement to be hate speech. This is despite the fact that the allegations were made by one of the local dailies and the commission is precluded by its own regulations from making findings on the basis of information emanating solely from the media.
Other matters dealt with by the report include the long running case of the Khayelitsha Anti-Eviction Campaign whose members still face severe and restrictive bail conditions, and a new case of defamation against a publisher who is about to release a book on the 1988 murder of the then African National Congress’s Paris representative Dulcie September. Similarly, the report discusses a recent anti-terrorism conference organised jointly by the University of Pretoria and the Embassy of the United States of America in South Africa, from which the public and media were barred.
Internally, the report states that an evaluation of the Freedom of Expression Defense Fund (FXDF) and proposals for the establishment of a Legal Unit within the FXI have been completed and it is envisaged that the Unit and Fund will be operational before the end of April 2004.
On the regional level, the report makes mention of a meeting held in late November between the head of the ACP, Simon Kimani Ndungu, Mr. Raymond Louw (formerly editor of the Rand Daily Mail) and Ms. Jeanette Minnie (a media freedom consultant) with President Festus Mogae of Botswana. Mr. Louw had requested the meeting in a bid to brief President Mogae about an on-going campaign to remove ‘insult laws’ from the statute books of many states in Africa. Governments and top state bureaucrats routinely use these laws to avoid criticism. Botswana was selected as a starting point due to its impressive record of good governance and respect for human rights, including freedom of expression.
Finally, the report notes that one of the major successes during this period has been the shelving of the controversial Anti-Terrorism Bill (or as its long name states: “The Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Bill”) by the government in late February. This small, though significant achievement has come about as a result of continuing widespread public lobbying against the Bill and also because the government’s alliance partner, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, threatened industrial action if it was not retracted. ACP’s role towards the temporary victory is a matter of public knowledge and, for instance, a recent media article cited the FXI as one of the most active, vociferous and consistent critiques of the Bill.
The full report is accessible online at: http://www.fxi.org.za/allframes.htm
Issued by Simon Kimani Ndung’u
Head: Anti-censorship Programme
