(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an FXI media statement: Ref: Media barred from arms deal hearing The Freedom of Expression Institute is shocked by the Public Protector’s deliberate breach of the people’s constitutional right to receive information and that of the media to report freely and openly on public interest matters by refusing live broadcast […]
(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an FXI media statement:
Ref: Media barred from arms deal hearing
The Freedom of Expression Institute is shocked by the Public Protector’s deliberate breach of the people’s constitutional right to receive information and that of the media to report freely and openly on public interest matters by refusing live broadcast of the hearing into the R43 billion arms deal.
In his judgement against the presence of the media at the hearing Public Protector Selby Baqwa used Section 118(a) of the Defence Act of 1957 that requires the permission of the Minister of Defence to convey information regarding certain aspects of the Defence Force. Also, Section 11 of the Armaments Development and Production Act, Act 57 of 1968, prohibits the disclosure by any person, including the news media, of any information relating to the acquisition in connection with armament by, for or on behalf of the Armament Corporation without the written authority of the Minister or other authorized person.
From the provision of the above Acts, Baqwa claims that if the proceedings are broadcast directly, he will have no control of what a witness might or might not say. It remains to be explained as to how the absence of a camera enables him to control the words of the witnesses. Baqwa implies that he wants to censor the witness and we find that totally unacceptable. We think South Africans have the right to hear for themselves what witnesses say and it will be up to them to judge the authenticity of witnesses. For Baqwa to try and filter information for the public is highly suspicious.
While it is true that these kind of laws still exist in the statute books, it is also advisable that government officials do not take advantage of the laws that were developed under the apartheid regime and use them to censor the media.
While we feel it is unfortunate that this case has come this far, where broadcasters are left with no choice except the legal route, we nevertheless support the broadcasters’ (the SABC and E-TV) fight to inform the public, and we will support them even in the court of law.
We would also like to point out that the refusal of live coverage by the Public Protector prejudices against broadcast media, because it is not their fault that they have to use cameras in their job.
We hope that the precedence that the court set during the King Commission into the Hansie Cronje affair will be followed. We think it is high time that the Public Protector realizes the damage he is causing to the whole process of inquiry into the arms and to the government itself by attempting to limit publicity around the issue.
The hearings into the arms deal are public hearings and for that fact we find no reason why the office of the public prosecutor finds it necessary to limit the coverage and hence the reach to the public.
There is an obvious contradiction for the government to call for public hearings into the arms deal, and then turn around and refuse the media permission to give live coverage. The actions of the office of the public protector raise questions as to whether these hearings are actually public.
In actual fact, we believe that there should have been no question as to whether the hearings should be broadcast or not. It should have been obvious to the office of the Public Protector that by virtue of the hearings being pronounced public the people have the right to that information, and any vehicle to transport that information to the people is necessary.
The Public Protector should know that he is not protecting the public by denying them information. He can only protect them by telling them what is going on.
