(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an FXI press release: RE: Constitutional Court decision on Russell Mababolo case The Freedom of Expression Institute welcomes the important Constitutional Court decision on the Russell Mamabolo case which furthers the cause of freedom of expression and freedom of the media, and paves the way for more open comment and […]
(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an FXI press release:
RE: Constitutional Court decision on Russell Mababolo case
The Freedom of Expression Institute welcomes the important Constitutional Court decision on the Russell Mamabolo case which furthers the cause of freedom of expression and freedom of the media, and paves the way for more open comment and discussion on court judgments. In addition to providing Constitutional protection for people who criticise judges and their judgments, the Constitutional Court has also set new ground-breaking rules for judges wishing to
prosecute people they deem guilty of having committed contempt of court.
The FXI supported Mamabolo’s appeal together with Business Day and e.TV in the joint role of amici curiae — friends of the court. It believes that the Constitutional Court ruling will materially further the cause of freedom of expression, open the courts to more intensive democratic monitoring and criticism where appropriate, and protect people from arbitrary judicial punishment as has occurred in the past.
Mamabolo is a spokesman for the Correctional Services Department who was fined R2 000 and given a suspended jail sentence for issuing a statement that Judge Johan Els had erred in granting bail to Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging leader Eugene Terreblanche and that he would not be released from prison. Judge Els determined that Mamabolo was guilty of “scandalising the court” and summarily convicted him of contempt of court and sentenced him.
Mamabolo appealed to the Constitutional Court which ruled that he had not defied the ruling of the high court and that his statement did not constitute scandalising the court. The court upheld his appeal and found that he had been exercising his right to freedom of expression and that the process under which he was convicted was “inquisitorial and inherently punitive and unfair”. The 11 Constitutional Court judges found that the procedure for dealing with the crime of contempt of court required that the accused be dealt with fairly and that constitutionally protected rights to a fair trail could not be trampled upon. The correct approach for Judge Els would have been to
lay a complaint with the directorate of public prosecutions which would deal with the matter as it saw fit.
