(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an FXI statement: FXI condemns banning of the media from Jacob Zuma rape hearing and harassment of The Star reporters The FXI condemns the harassment of The Star reporters and the banning of the media by the police in former Deputy President Jacob Zuma’s court hearing on a charge of […]
(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an FXI statement:
FXI condemns banning of the media from Jacob Zuma rape hearing and harassment of The Star reporters
The FXI condemns the harassment of The Star reporters and the banning of the media by the police in former Deputy President Jacob Zuma’s court hearing on a charge of rape earlier today, as well as the reported actions of Area Commissioner Oswald Reddy in unilaterally declaring the court proceedings in camera. According to information provided to the FXI, journalists from The Star were prevented from attending the court hearing by the police. The newspaper was apparently told by Area Commissioner Reddy that the hearing was ‘highly confidential’, and that no-one was allowed in. Apparently the police also harassed a photojournalist and tried to confiscate the camera.
The police’s actions are absurd, and smack of collusion between the police and the Area Commissioner with Zuma’s team to shield him from further public embarrassment. In fact, the police acted as an extension of Zuma’s bodyguards, which is an unacceptable form of bias.
Undoubtedly, it is the police’s role to protect the safety of the court: a matter that should be of legitimate concern to the police given the high public profile of the case. However, they acted in a highly partisan manner, effectively attempting to throw a shroud of secrecy around Zuma, rather than addressing safety and security concerns. In any event the media could not possibly represent a threat to the security of the court, therefore the actions of the police amount to little more than pro-Zuma driven bullying of the journalists concerned. The FXI strongly encourages the journalists concerned to lay complaints with the Independent Complaints Directorate.
If teams representing the accused are allowed to interfere with the right of individuals and the media to access information through open court proceedings, then the transparency of the judicial system would grind to a halt. S.35 of the Constitution says that everyone has the right to a fair trial, including a public trial. Therefore the public’s right of access to court is constitutionally protected, except if there is a minor accused or if there is a specific ruling by a magistrate that it is in the interest of the public to be excluded.
Reportedly, the journalists were excluded by the police and Zuma’s bodyguards, and the closure of the court was not by a decision of the court. S.153 of the Criminal Procedures Act governs circumstances when a court can be closed. In terms of this provision, the court must make the decision, not the police. It was not the role of Area Commissioner Reddy to usurp the magistrate’s powers to decide whether to close the court. By declaring the proceedings confidential, and then responding in a very mocking manner when challenged by the journalist, he abused his authority, and demonstrated contempt for media freedom in general. This cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. It is also unacceptable for the police to allow Zuma’s bodyguards to manhandle one of The Star’s photographers, given that they are supposed to prevent assaults from taking place; their reported inaction amounts to dereliction of duty. If they were concerned that the administration of justice or safety was at risk, they should have applied to the court and had the matter heard by the magistrate, rather than making their own decisions on the matter.
In any event, the trial had not commenced and Zuma’s appearance was preliminary, so the provisions around the closure of the court to protect the testimony of the accused or witnesses simply would not apply in this case. The police therefore violated s.153 of the Act as they did not follow due process in having the closure of the court considered by the court itself.
Another deeply disturbing aspect of the events is the impression that is created that the police were merely an extension of Zuma’s bodyguards, and that they were acting in Zuma’s interests and against the media’s public interest role.
While Zuma was appearing on a bail application, which is really a formality and which generally does not involve the disclosure of sensitive information, these events bode ill for the media’s ability to cover the trial as it unfolds, and sound warning bells that attempts may be made by Zuma’s team to hold the trial in camera. They set a negative tone for the trial ahead.
Lastly, it is ironic that the police have unilaterally closed the court at the start of a rape trial during the 16 Days of Activism of No Violence against Women and Children: an irony that clearly is lost on the police. Public institutions like the police should be doing their utmost, especially during this period, to foster transparency and openness around rape cases, especially where the accused is a public figure. By acting in this manner, the police have given the country the message that they are not serious about public debate regarding rape accusations, especially against public figures.
