(MISA/IFEX) – The South African National Editors Forum (Sanef) has been consulting editors and lawyers about the exclusion of the media from former deputy president Jacob Zuma’s rape hearing. On 6 December 2005, reporters were barred from Court 9 at the Johannesburg magistrate’s court, where Zuma was being charged with rape. They were also not […]
(MISA/IFEX) – The South African National Editors Forum (Sanef) has been consulting editors and lawyers about the exclusion of the media from former deputy president Jacob Zuma’s rape hearing.
On 6 December 2005, reporters were barred from Court 9 at the Johannesburg magistrate’s court, where Zuma was being charged with rape. They were also not allowed immediate access to the docket.
Expressing his concerns over the events at the court, Sanef chairman Joe Thloloe noted that “Zuma appeared in court long before the normal hours that are set aside by the court. In fact, he was sneaked into court.
“While he was there and the media thought they must try and cover the case, they were barred from covering the case by the police and his own bodyguards.”
The actions of the police appeared intended to shield Zuma from further public embarrassment, the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) observed.
“It was not the role of area commissioner (Oswald) Reddy to usurp the magistrate’s powers to decide whether to close the court,” commented FXI Executive Director Jane Duncan. “The police and the area commissioner abused their positions of authority to prevent the media’s right to report on the proceedings freely and without interference.”
The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)-South Africa stated: “This is blatant interference in the constitutional duty of the media to report judicial proceedings and the appearance in court of alleged offenders.”
The National Prosecuting Authority proclaimed its sympathy for the media. “We would sympathize with the fact that the media was frustrated in that they couldn’t get pictures of that appearance,” spokesman Makhosini Nkosi said.
The NPA also denied playing any part in preventing journalists from attending the proceedings.
Explaining why the NPA had not notified the media that Zuma was scheduled to appear, Nkosi said it was in deference to Zuma’s rights and from the desire to cause minimal disruption to other court proceedings.
“We also conceded to the matter being held at 8:00 a.m., before normal court time, for the same reason.”
He acknowledged that the police had decided not to arrest Zuma, but expressed NPA’s agreement with the decision. According to Nkosi, arresting someone is not a punitive measure but one merely intended to ensure that the detainee will appear in court, and with Zuma there was no risk of his not appearing.
“In the case of Mr. Zuma, he already has the corruption matter in Durban. He has never violated his bail or acted in a manner contrary to what he was ordered to do. It was thus unnecessary to place him under physical arrest.”
Nkosi said Zuma’s case would be heard in the High Court, as was the norm with rape cases.
Johannesburg chief magistrate Gert Jonker was not aware of any ruling to prevent the media from attending the case.
In the hearing, Zuma was granted bail of 20,000 Rand (approx. US$3,100). The case was postponed until 13 February 2006, when he will appear before the Johannesburg High Court.
Zuma has denied the accusation that he raped a 31-year-old family friend at his home in Forest Town, Johannesburg, in November. He has also denied the charges of corruption on which he will be tried in the Durban High Court in July 2006.
Many of Zuma’s supporters believe that these cases form part of a campaign to stop him becoming the next president of the ANC – and the country.
