(MISA/IFEX) – On 8 October 2003, former “Sunday Times” journalist Ranjeni Munusamy was subpoenaed to appear before the Hefer Commission as its first witness, forcing her to testify before the presidential commission of enquiry. The Hefer Commission is seeking information on the source of documents and a story that Munusamy leaked to the rival Sunday […]
(MISA/IFEX) – On 8 October 2003, former “Sunday Times” journalist Ranjeni Munusamy was subpoenaed to appear before the Hefer Commission as its first witness, forcing her to testify before the presidential commission of enquiry.
The Hefer Commission is seeking information on the source of documents and a story that Munusamy leaked to the rival Sunday newspaper “City Press” on 7 September. The story alleged that National Director of Public Prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka had been investigated by the ruling African National Congress (ANC) on suspicion that he was an apartheid spy. Due to the broad-ranging nature of the subpoena, it is inevitable that Munusamy will be asked to reveal her source while on the witness stand.
South African President Thabo Mbeki initiated the probe, headed by former Appeal Court Judge Josephus Hefer, to investigate allegations that Ngcuka was a registered spy with the apartheid security forces or National Intelligence Agency prior to 1994, working under the code name RS452.
Munusamy, as the author of a story based on documents leaked to her by a confidential source, will be forced to testify before the Bloemfontein Supreme Court on 13 October. She has not indicated whether she will comply with the subpoena and is seeking legal advice.
MISA-South Africa (MISA-SA) has urged Munusamy not to testify. The organisation has offered to support her if she refuses to testify, or if she takes the stand but refuses to provide information identifying her source.
MISA-SA notes that the Declaration of Rights and Obligations of Journalists (also known as the Munich Charter) is clear with respect to protection of sources. Journalists should “. . . observe professional secrecy and not divulge the source of information obtained in confidence,” the declaration states. When sources provide information to journalists, they do so demanding the utmost confidentiality. MISA regards the confidential nature of the source-journalist relationship as sacrosanct, similar to the bond between confessor and priest or lawyer and client.
The failure of the Hefer Commission to acknowledge source confidentiality undermines the work of journalists, limiting South African citizens’ right to freedom of expression (enshrined under Section 16 of the constitution) and the right of the public to access information under Section 32 of South Africa’s founding charter.
To force Munusamy to testify would create a precedent that could lead to the eventual erosion of the trust relationship between journalists and sources and reduce the opportunity for information leaks, whistle blowing and confidential briefings that shed light on shady dealings.
Furthermore, the application of punitive sanctions against members of the media who choose to protect their sources could result in self-censorship that would limit the publication of information in the public interest.
In a joint statement by MISA-SA, the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) and the South African National Editors Forum (Sanef), the organisations remarked on a provision in Section 6 of the 1947 Commissions Act, under which the Hefer Commission is constituted, which states that witnesses may only refuse to answer questions if they have “sufficient cause”. The organisations argued that the constitutional right to media freedom (Section 16.1 (a) of the 1996 South African National Constitution) provides “sufficient cause” for journalists to refuse to testify.
MISA-SA, Sanef and the FXI will write a joint letter of appeal to Justice Hefer to request that the subpoena against Munusamy be scrapped. They will also seek a meeting with the judge to express the organisations’ concerns.
If Munusamy refuses to reveal her source to the judge she faces a six-month jail term or an unspecified fine under the Commissions Act.
