(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an FXI media statement: RE: FXI condemns granting of gagging order against Mail and Guardian newspaper The Freedom of Expression Institute is deeply disturbed by the decision of the Johannesburg High Court to prevent the Mail and Guardian newspaper from printing an article on the ‘Oilgate’ scandal. The article was […]
(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an FXI media statement:
RE: FXI condemns granting of gagging order against Mail and Guardian newspaper
The Freedom of Expression Institute is deeply disturbed by the decision of the Johannesburg High Court to prevent the Mail and Guardian newspaper from printing an article on the ‘Oilgate’ scandal. The article was meant to be a follow-up on an article published last week, alleging that the oil company Imvume Management was used to channel R15 million from the state to the ruling African National Congress (ANC) to assist it in running its election campaign in April 2004. Yesterday, Imvume approached the High Court to prevent the publication of the article from going ahead, and the application was granted last night.
The instruction by the High Court not to print a follow-up article to the story led to the newspaper pulping its latest edition at the eleventh hour and reprinting the current edition. This is a costly exercise that a relatively small independent newspaper can ill-afford, but it is disturbing to note that the court has not been sensitive to the serious financial hardship this decision is likely to cause.
The decision to ‘ban’ the article reminds one of South Africa’s unfortunate past when – under apartheid – prior restraint was practiced against the media to prevent controversial stories of public importance from reaching the public domain. This practice ensured that the government was shielded from criticism of its conduct, and also forced the media to practice self-censorship as the costs of pulping a newspaper following an urgent court order was generally prohibitive.
The FXI is particularly disturbed about one of the reasons given by the Court for the gagging order, namely that the newspaper refused to reveal its confidential sources of information for the story, which Imvume claimed were obtained illegally. According to arguments made by the Mail and Guardian, the sources were verified through a second source. It is troubling that a Court would attack the sacrosanct principle of confidentiality of sources in this manner, and also smacks of intimidation as the Court was effectively threatening the newspaper to reveal its sources, or risk serious financial hardship. Even if the information had been obtained illegally, it had been verified.
It is a generally accepted principle of media freedom that if organisations that are being investigated by a newspaper spring information leaks, they should take responsibility for their own lax security and not attempt to plug the leak by gagging the newspaper that obtained the information. The argument made by the Imvume Management that its privacy and dignity would be violated is ludicrous. The story is a matter of serious public interest, as allegations have been made concerning the improper use of taxpayers’ money to bolster the ruling party during the run up to national elections. It is clear that in this instance, the right to freedom of expression of the newspaper should outweigh the right to privacy and dignity of Imvume, as the matter concerns an abuse of public funds.
It is also disturbing that on the very day that the Constitutional Court has pronounced on the importance of freedom of expression – in the ‘Laugh it Off Promotions’ vs. South African Breweries matter – the actions of a lower court has prevented one of the most important newspapers in South Africa from reaching the streets. This contradiction underscores the fact that freedom of expression must constantly be fought for, and can be won, even if the fight has to be taken to the doors of the lower courts.
