(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an 8 July 2004 FXI statement: FXI condemns police barring of media from Diepsloot The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) has signalled its outrage at police action in Diepsloot on 7 July 2004, when, for a period of three hours, media were barred from covering the ongoing conflict between the […]
(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an 8 July 2004 FXI statement:
FXI condemns police barring of media from Diepsloot
The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) has signalled its outrage at police action in Diepsloot on 7 July 2004, when, for a period of three hours, media were barred from covering the ongoing conflict between the residents of the area and state authorities. Police threatened to arrest any journalist who entered the area.
Diepsloot is an informal settlement, located a few kilometres outside of Johannesburg in Gauteng Province. Since 5 July 2004, Diepsloot has been rocked by violent confrontations between its residents and the police, amid allegations that the residents will be relocated to Brits, a rural area in the country’s North West Province.
In barring the media, police allegedly invoked the provisions of section 13(11) of the South African Police Services Act (No. 68 of 1995), which empowers members of the police force to declare an area a crime scene and cordon it off for purposes of carrying out investigations. This particular section stipulates that:
– 13(11)(a) A member may, for the purposes of investigating any offence or alleged offence, cordon off the scene of such offence or alleged offence and any adjacent area which is reasonable in the circumstances to cordon off in order to conduct an effective investigation at the scene of the offence or alleged offence.
– (b) A member may, where it is reasonable in the circumstances in order to conduct such investigation, prevent any person from entering or leaving an area so cordoned off.
FXI argued that it is essential to understand that section 13(11) as a whole permits the cordoning off of crime scenes for purposes of “investigation” only and not merely as an operational requirement. As it were, when media was barred entry, the police were not engaged in investigating a crime or crimes in Diepsloot but, on the contrary, were trying to contain the violent protests that have been witnessed there since the beginning of the week. The organisation stated that public order policing is an operational rather than an investigative activity.
FXI said it found it particularly disturbing that police are once again resorting to some of the insidious tactics much favoured during the apartheid era and especially during the successive spate of state emergencies, when police declared whole townships and villages “unrest areas” and sealed them off from the media. Gross atrocities and the pervasive violation of fundamental rights (such as killings, torture, beatings and demolition of houses) then occurred behind this darkened window, inside the exclusionary zones. FXI said it shuddered to think that South Africa’s modern day democratic police force is once again betraying trappings of its shameful past.
“The excuse given by the police that media was barred from Diepsloot for its own safety, and that the presence of media was fuelling further violence is a shoddy and laughable attempt at whitewashing a clearly unconstitutional and illogical directive,” the organisation said in a press statement.
Furthermore, FXI said it found it disconcerting that police decided to embark on a selective and opportunistic interpretation of section 13(11) in regards to Diepsloot, whereas the same police force and certain of its other organs, such as the specialised crime investigating unit (popularly known as “the Scorpions”), usually have no qualms in inviting media to cover their “Hollywood style” sting operations and crime blitzes. FXI wondered whether media is invited to the latter category of scenes in order to merely help boost the image of the police force.
The organisation noted that the media’s obligation to gather and report news as it breaks needed no elaboration. In actual fact, FXI argued, South Africa’s Constitutional Court has observed that media has a: “‘constitutional mandate’ to inform and educate the public, and that the ability of citizens to be effective and responsible members of our society depends to a large extent on the way media executes this constitutional responsibility. By barring media from covering the on-going conflict between the residents of Diepsloot and the state, police unjustifiably denied media its right to receive and impart information as guaranteed by the Constitution, besides pouring scorn on the hallowed reasoning of the Constitutional Court.”
FXI called for a substantive statement to be issued by the National Police Commissioner, distancing his office from the police action in Diepsloot and clarifying the particular circumstances under which section 13(11) of the Police Services Act is to be invoked. The organisation also stated that the National Police Commissioner must bear in mind that the cordoning off of crime areas must be “reasonable” as stipulated in this section of the act. For that reason, media, as a guardian of society’s interests, must as far a possible be given reasonable access to crime and operational areas.
