(FXI/IFEX) – The following is a 21 September 2006 FXI media release: FXI’s response to Constitutional Court’s ruling on SABC’s application to broadcast Schabir Shaik’s appeal The FXI is disappointed with today’s judgment of the Constitutional Court (CC) dismissing an appeal by the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) to broadcast the appeals of Schabir Shaik […]
(FXI/IFEX) – The following is a 21 September 2006 FXI media release:
FXI’s response to Constitutional Court’s ruling on SABC’s application to broadcast Schabir Shaik’s appeal
The FXI is disappointed with today’s judgment of the Constitutional Court (CC) dismissing an appeal by the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) to broadcast the appeals of Schabir Shaik and others in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). The FXI has read the judgment and considers it to be retrogressive for media freedom and open justice in South Africa.
In dismissing the appeal, the CC found that the SCA exercised its discretion in terms of section 173 of the Constitution, which gives the SCA the inherent power to regulate its own process. In the FXI’s opinion, however, the CC 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.
The FXI agrees with the minority judgments of Moseneke DCJ and Mokgoro J, who would have allowed the appeal and consider that the principle of open justice, which is well entrenched in our law, provides a powerful reason for allowing the broadcast of court proceedings, particularly in South Africa where the overwhelming majority of South Africans receive news and information by means of radio and television.
The ruling is all the more disappointing, considering that the policy of the CC appears to favour live broadcasts in the CC itself. The decision fails to take into account the peculiar demands of reporting for radio and television. Broadcasters need both microphone and camera access to the courtroom to capture material, and disallowing them from using their “tools of the trade” in the courtroom prejudices against these media relative to the print media.
The CC endorses the prejudiced view of the SCA on edited highlights packages from court proceedings, stating that “sound bytes . . . may not be justified . . . [and] carry the real risk of trivialising complex issues and converting what should be public education into public entertainment.” This view is patronizing and presumptuous, as it assumes, first, that broadcast journalists are prone to “get it wrong” (and sound broadcasts should therefore be banned), while print journalists are free to publish whatever unjustified and trivialized sound bytes they wish. Second, the court overlooks the fact that, where broadcast journalists do get it wrong, mechanisms of recourse are available.
The FXI believes that a more flexible approach is needed in dealing with the increase in litigation in which electronic media coverage is called for. The interests of justice are of paramount consideration in such applications and there is a heavy responsibility on the media to convey a fair, just and reasonable reflection of what the court proceedings are about and how litigants are progressing. The courts are entitled to co-operation from the media where there are restrictions in the coverage of court proceedings. What is therefore required is well coordinated teamwork from the media and legal institutions with a view to satisfying the public’s primary aim, which will remain the achievement of justice for all. This is the substance on which the community’s trust and confidence in the legal system and judiciary of any country is based.
