(MISA/IFEX) – On 14 May 2001, Cape High Court Judge John Foxcroft declined to issue a warrant for the arrest of former “Cape Times” chief photographer Benny Gool. Gool did not arrive to testify at the trial of five senior Pagad members accused of lynching Hard Livings gang co-leader Rashaad Staggie. Judge Foxcroft pointed out […]
(MISA/IFEX) – On 14 May 2001, Cape High Court Judge John Foxcroft declined to issue a warrant for the arrest of former “Cape Times” chief photographer Benny Gool. Gool did not arrive to testify at the trial of five senior Pagad members accused of lynching Hard Livings gang co-leader Rashaad Staggie.
Judge Foxcroft pointed out the omissions and inadequacies on the subpoena served on Gool, and said the state should issue a new and correct subpoena.
Prosecutor Jan Steyn wanted Gool to appear in court to explain why he was in contempt of court. He said it was clear that Gool had received the summons and was in open defiance of the court, and that the incorrect date had been a legitimate human error.
Background Information
On 14 May, MISA reported that Gool had been advised by his lawyers not to testify. In an earlier interview with “The Star” newspaper, the journalist had said that “there are two things I have to consider: one is testifying as a journalist, which I’m not prepared to do at all. Secondly, there’s the question of security. Witnesses have been killed left, right and centre. Police can’t serve me with a subpoena and not even talk about providing security.”
Over the past two years, Independent Newspapers Cape has been vigorously fighting Gool’s case by challenging the legality of any subpoenas served on him, taking other legal steps on his behalf, and seeking to secure his safety.
In October 2000, the elite Scorpion police unit raided the South African Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC, Reuters and Associates Press news agencies and the offices of the National Association of Broadcasters to obtain video tapes recording the murder of Cape Town gangster Staggie three years ago.
The action, which was approved by National Director of Public Prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka, was seen by the media as a flagrant breach of the spirit and the letter of the “Record of Understanding” reached between the ministers of justice and of safety and security and Ngcuka in February 1999. The agreement clearly recognises the need “under appropriate circumstances, that media sources and information should be protected” and lays down certain procedures which have to be followed by the authorities before a subpoena may be issued in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act. The subpoena authorising the 19 October searches were issued in accordance with Sections 20, 21 and 25 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
The negotiations that led to the agreement related to Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act. This clause empowers a court to demand the identity of journalists’ sources or information that journalists may have relating to the commission of crime. The document states that the agreement would include, but not be limited to, Section 179 and 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act. At the time, the police said their action was not a breach of the agreement because they are not requiring anyone to provide information or testify in court.
