(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an FXI media release: FXI condemns gagging of Mail and Guardian newspaper by Johannesburg High Court The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) is very disturbed to hear that yet another urgent interdict has been granted against the media, in this case the Mail and Guardian newspaper. The interdict was sought […]
(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an FXI media release:
FXI condemns gagging of Mail and Guardian newspaper by Johannesburg High Court
The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) is very disturbed to hear that yet another urgent interdict has been granted against the media, in this case the Mail and Guardian newspaper. The interdict was sought by the Chief Executive Officer of MTN South Africa, Maanda Manyatshe (who was head of the Post Office). The interdict relates to an expose the newspaper intended to publish today. The interdict was granted by the Johannesburg High Court yesterday evening, after Manyatshe was sent a series of questions to respond to in connection with the story.
Powerful institutions and individuals in South Africa have clearly learned that it is extremely easy to obtain interdicts against the media, in the wake of the interdicts granted against the Mail and Guardian in another expose, on the controversial “Oilgate” matter, and various Sunday newspapers to stop them from publishing the Danish cartoons before they had even decided to do so.
Interdicts have become simply too easy to obtain against the media, and the urgent nature of the matters means that the issues often cannot be aired properly until the return date. It seems that more and more judges are making the assumption that the applicants in these matters must have a case, and tend to look favourably on the applicant’s applications, at the expense of the freedom of expression rights of South Africans. This is an unhealthy and worrying trend, and the latest judgement against the newspaper confirms this trend.
What is even more disturbing about this interdict is that Manyatshe reportedly was granted more time to respond to the Mail and Guardian’s answering affidavit, which meant that the newspaper could not publish the story this week in any event, even if they were able to. This sets the precedent of applicants holding newspapers to ransom simply by dragging their feet in responding. This precedent will probably be seized on with relish by other powerful individuals, who can achieve censorship of exposes about their activities simply by staying silent. It would also appear that the parties concerned are well versed in how to “play” the Mail and Guardian’s weekly deadlines in a manner that kills reporting for that week’s edition, and that extracts the maximum “pain” in publishing terms.
In general terms, if an interim interdict is granted, this is sufficient to stifle the newspaper, as by the time the return date happens, the matter is already old news. This is what applicants bank on; they want to gag newspapers when the news is still fresh, because that is when the most damage will be done to the free flow of information. Once a story is old, it runs the risk of dying.
Newspapers need to be able to make editorial decisions to publish when news is still breaking, and for judges to usurp the editorial freedom of editors to decide is simply not acceptable. Editors should make editorial decisions, not judges. This interdict amounts to pre-publication censorship, and should not be entertained by South African courts.
This interdict also underlines the increasing intolerance of public figures who would rather stifle public debate about their activities, than debate them in the full glare of the public spotlight. Manyatshe is giving the impression that he has something to hide. If he had problems with the story, then he should have made this clear in response to the questions. If he was still not happy, then numerous avenues would have been available to him after publication.
