Menu

[Concluded] – Court Cases

Cases Site Wide Image

SANEF Files Interdict Application Against Black First Land First

, , ,

The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) has today filed an urgent application against Black First Land First (BLF) and its founder, Mr Andile Mngxitama, at the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg.

SANEF has asked the court to interdict BLF and Mngxitama from harassing, intimidating, assaulting and threatening eleven senior journalists, editors and commentators that have been targeted for their reporting on state capture. This follows a protest at the private house of Tiso Blackstar editor at large Peter Bruce last Thursday and the intimidation and harassment of Business Day editor Tim Cohen and political commentator Karima Brown at Bruce’s house. BLF has since threatened more editors and journalists with similar protests at their private homes and have referred to Brown, HuffPost editor-at-large Ferial Haffajee and Talk Radio 702 presenter Eusebius McKaiser as “askaris”.

The other co-applicants are amaBhungane partner Sam Sole, News24 editor Adriaan Basson, Talk Radio 702 presenter Stephen Grootes, independent journalist Max du Preez, Eyewitness News (EWN) editor Katy Katopodis and EWN reporter Barry Bateman. In her founding affidavit, SANEF chairperson Mahlatse Gallens says the harassment of these journalists is “part and parcel” of an orchestrated campaign. “Each one of the journalists are senior professionals who in their area of reporting expertise have reported to the nation, objectively and independently on the political state of the South African economy and the corruption and maladministration consequent upon the alleged capturing of the national economy to further the interests of an elite few.”

According to Gallens the purpose of the targeted harassment of these journalists is to keep allegations of corruption and state capture out of the public domain.
“The concerns around state capture are rife.  Not a day goes by that we as South Africans are not faced with the pervasive impact of its corruption and maladministration. It is important that free and independent journalism is brought to bear on these reports because the media is also a catalyst of peace, dialogue and understanding, which will create the framework for the public to digest these reports within the bounds of the rule of law.  If we are perceived in any way as falsifying information because we are being threatened, public debate becomes fractured, polarised and I daresay, volatile as a consequence of segments of society perceiving themselves as being misled,” Gallens stated.
SANEF has asked the court to interdict BLF and Mngxitama from gathering outside the homes of these journalists; from threatening these journalists with violence on social media, and from inciting harm against the journalists in any public interviews.

“This court should be slow to countenance such violence and threats against the media because a free and pluralist media is vital to the democratic functioning of the Republic. This means that as journalists, publishers, editors, bloggers and other media actors we must be able to carry out our tasks without fear of intervention or reprisals – which requires adequate protection from violence, threats and pressures.  This can affect how we work, which stories we decide to report and how we report on them. Furthermore, an attack on one journalist or media worker can have a chilling effect on others, particularly when perpetrators can act with impunity, as the respondents [BLF and Mngxitama] do,” Gallens stated.

Our application has been served on BLF and Mngxitama, who will now have the opportunity to file answering papers before the matter is heard by the high court.
For Inquiries:

SANEF Chairperson: Mahlatse Gallens 083 399 2852
SANEF Deputy Chairperson: Katy Katopodis 082 805 7022
SANEF Treasurer: Adriaan Basson 082 562 2113
SANEF Media Freedom Chair: Sam Mkokeli 082 084 2051

Socials

Twitter: @SAEditorsForum

Email: [email protected]

Website: SANEF

 

Cases Site Wide Image

Supreme Court of Appeals Ruling on Censorship of Television Broadcast of Disorder in Parliament

, , ,

The South African National Editors Forum welcomes the decision by the Supreme Court of Appeal of ordering the censoring of broadcast of commotion in Parliament as unconstitutional. This is a victory for openness and transparency.

SANEF, Primedia Broadcasting and other civil society organisations had appealed a decision of the Western Cape high court which had ruled that such censoring was constitutional.
The matter followed the signal jamming of cellphones at the opening of Parliament in February 2015 and the failure of the Parliamentary broadcast feed to reflect the commotion that ensued later. The television feed provided by Parliament to national broadcasters only showed the face of the Speaker during the disorder.

Parliament said this was in line with its rules which stated that unruly behavior should not be shown. SANEF raised objections to these rules even before the State of The Nation address but our protests fell on deaf ears. Following the commotion in Parliament an urgent court application was lodged in Cape Town seeking firstly that the jamming of the cellphone signal be declared unlawful and unconstitutional; and secondly that the rules of Parliament that prohibited the full broadcast of proceedings, including commotions, was a violation of the right of the public to be fully informed of proceedings in the House.
The Western Cape high court full bench heard the case and the majority declined our plea, with one judge dissenting. The matter was then taken on appeal to the SCA which gave its ruling today.

The ruling by Appeals Court Judge CH Lewis states amongst others that: “ The rules and policy adopted by Parliament governing the broadcast of disorder in the Parliamentary Chamber violates the public’s right to open Parliament and are unconstitutional and unlawful. The disruption of the cellphone signal….was unlawful”.
What this victory for transparency means is that henceforth if there is disorder in Parliament the feed provided to broadcasters by Parliament should reflect the full picture of what is happening and not focus on the face of the presiding officer.
The ruling also means the state security apparatus can no longer jam signals at will in Parliament. All these mean that the ability of the media to fully inform the public on issues of public interest is enhanced and SANEF calls on Parliament to immediately implement the ruling.
The full judgement can be accessed at https://sanef.org.za

For Inquiries contact

Mathatha Tsedu – SANEF Executive Director
082 454 0527

Socials

Twitter: @SAEditorsForum

Email: [email protected]

Website: SANEF

Cases Site Wide Image

SANEF Statement on the Western Cape Court Ruling – 28 May 2015

, ,

The SA National Editors’ Forum is disappointed at the majority ruling of the Western Cape high court in the case between a number of media houses and institutions, including SANEF, and Parliament.

The case pertained to the nature of the broadcast feed that the National Assembly and the NCOP provide for broadcast during incidents of gross misbehavior by Members of Parliament in the two houses.

SANEF and the other organisations and media houses had argued that the rules that bar the provision of video and audio feed of gross disturbance amounted to censorship and was therefore unconstitutional.

In a full bench ruling by three judges, two ruled against the media organisations whilst one dissented and agreed with the media companies. SANEF is still convinced that the public would be better served by seeing all of what their representatives get up to in Parliament.

SANEF will study the judgment handed down this morning.

The fact that the bench was split on the issue shows that there is real possibility another court could arrive at a different conclusion. The main judgment does not in our opinion fully appreciate the grave danger of allowing parliament to impose rules that curtail freedom of the media.

For Inquiries
SANEF Chairperson Mpumelelo Mkhabela
0822962541

Socials

Twitter: @SAEditorsForum

Email: [email protected]

Website: SANEF

Cases Site Wide Image

High Court Interim Ruling in the Matter Between SANEF and Other Organisations Vs. Parliament

, ,

SANEF Statement 10 March 2015

The Western Cape High Court today handed down part judgment in the matter between SANEF and other parties against Parliament.

SANEF and the other organisations filed a two part urgent application last month. The first part dealt with the jamming of cellphone signal in Parliament during the State of the Nation Address. The second part related to the rules of Parliament governing the broadcast of grave disturbances in the House which direct that such disturbances not be broadcast.

The applicants had asked the court to grant interim relief that would effectively suspend the rules pending a determination of their constitutionality. The Court declined to grant the interim order arguing that no irreparable harm would be suffered by both the applicants and the public as the final hearing on the second part is scheduled for April 20.

SANEF has noted the interim judgment of the court and the fact that it is not based on the merits of the legal issues raised. SANEF is pleased that the court has taken our application seriously: firstly by appointing a full bench to hear it and secondly by insisting on a full hearing.

We further appreciate the court’s acknowledgment of the serious constitutional issues that our application raises and that the court is prepared to deal with the constitutional validity of the rules of Parliament.

Parliament’s representative had argued that the court should not instruct the legislature on how to run its proceedings as it would undermine the principle of separation of powers.  In this regard the court ruled: “In our view, an order of court directed at compliance with the provisions of the Constitution would not undermine the principle of separation of powers.”

It’s clear from the interim judgment that the court wants to appraise itself of our argument and those of the defendants fully before a final judgment is handed down.

We are finalising the additional affidavits as required by the court.

For Inquiries:

SANEF Chairperson: Mpumelelo Mkhabela 082 296 2541
SANEF Media Freedom Committee Chairperson: Adriaan Basson 082 562 2113

Socials

Twitter: @SAEditorsForum

Email: [email protected]

Website: SANEF

Access to Information & Regulatory Site Wide Image

SANEF Statement on Outcome of the Court Application on the Jamming of Cellphone Signal in Parliament

, ,

Sanef Statement 17 February 2015

The South African National Editors Forum together with Primedia Broadcasting, Right2know, Media24 and Open Democracy Advice Centre this morning approached the Cape High Court to seek an order that Parliament undertakes that no jamming of mobile signal shall ever happen. SANEF also sought an order that Parliament should agree to provide wide angle shots of video coverage of proceeedings especially when there was disruption in the House. In the next stage of the case,  SANEF will seek permission for broadcasters to bring their own equipment and cover the proceedings themselves. An attempt to reach agreement out of court failed and the matter was then heard by Judge Elize Steyn. She recorded Parliament’s undertaking that the signal jamming should never have happened and it will ensure that it never happens again. This is a victory on signal jamming.

Regarding the relief sought on the filming of disruptions, the judge gave Parliament until Monday next week to file affidavits. Parliament has asked for longer. This part of the case will be argued on Thursday February 25.

On the application for the use of own cameras and setting aside the present Parliamentary policy that disallows this, the Judge agree that this would be heard on an expedited basis in the next stage of the case subject to the judge president authorising the dates.

For Inquiries:
SANEF Chairperson Mpumelelo Mkhabela 082 296 2541
SANEF Media Freedom Committee Chairperson: Adriaan Basson 082 562 2113

Socials

Twitter: @SAEditorsForum

Email: [email protected]

Website: SANEF

Cases Site Wide Image

Constitutional Court Declares Sections of Films & Publications Act Unconstitutional

, ,

The Constitutional Court has today ruled in favour of the South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) and Print Media South Africa now Print & Digital Media South Africa (PDMSA) in a crucial test-case for freedom of expression.

The court found that sections of the Films and Publications Act requiring pre-publication classification of material dealing with “sexual conduct”
limited the freedom of expression vital to a democracy and offended against the constitution.

It ruled that the limitation was neither proportional to its objectives, nor justifiable, and that less restrictive means could be used to achieve the same outcomes.

While mainstream newspapers were exempted from these rules, all other publications, including magazines, books, artworks, and Internet speech were not. The requirement to submit for classification before publishing anything containing sexual conduct (which includes books about sexual abuse, for example), impacted on all publishers, and so this is a victory for the public’s right to receive information.

Sanef is delighted with the judgement. It represents an important affirmation of the principle that pre-publication restraints on speech are particularly constitutionally offensive, and that robust protections for free speech are fundamental to our democratic order.

Issued by the SA National Editors’ Forum (SANEF)

Socials

Twitter: @SAEditorsForum

Email: [email protected]

Website: SANEF

Cases Site Wide Image

North Gauteng High Court Declared Unconstitutional Amendments to the Films & Publications Act

, ,

The North Gauteng High Court has declared unconstitutional amendments to the Films and Publications Act following a review application by Print Media South Africa (PMSA) and the South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF).

The act as amended placed onerous pre-publication vetting requirements on any publication that intended to depict or describe sexual conduct that violates or shows disrespect to the human dignity of any person, degrades a person, or constitutes incitement to harm, violence or advocacy of hatred. Mainstream newspapers were exempted.

Counsel for PMSA and SANEF argued that the act defined sexual conduct very broadly, and would require prior screening by the Films and Publications Board of a wide range of mainstream magazines and other publications which might describe such sexual conduct without condoning it.

It would lead to self-censorship, lengthy delays in publication, and an unjustifiable incursion on basic rights of freedom of expression, they told the court.

Judge Mathopo agreed, saying that delays in publication caused by pre-screening would erode the currency of news, and amount to an unjustifiable limitation on a basic constitutional right.

“it is probably no exaggeration to say that in all probability democracy cannot survive in the absence of freedom of expression”…“I have no doubt that timeous communication is essential in a democratic system, for absent the right to receive, impart and give expression to information and ideas, there can be no meaningful talk or debates of liberal democracy. Consequently in a democratic society a system of prior restraint based on executive approval will operate as greater deterrent to freedom of expression and cause damage to fundamental democratic rights”.

“I have no doubt that there are less restrictive means of protecting children other than the invasion of free speech”,  he added.

He also concluded that there was no basis in law for treating magazines and mainstream newspapers differently.

SANEF welcomes the judgement, which is an important contribution to the growing body of law that recognizes and protects the centrality of freedom of expression in general, and freedom of the press in particular to our democracy.

Issued by the SA National Editors’ Forum (SANEF)

Socials

Twitter: @SAEditorsForum

Email: [email protected]

Website: SANEF

Cases Site Wide Image

SANEF Welcomes Court Decision Stopping Closed Parliamentary Hearing

, , ,

24 August 2010

The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) and the Press Gallery Association (PGA) welcome the decision by the Western Cape High Court to grant an interim interdict against the parliamentary portfolio committee on communications holding a hearing of a briefing by the SA Broadcasting Corporation behind closed doors. The hearing would have discussed the SABC’s “functionality”,  its turnaround strategy for the broadcaster and the appointment of SABC Group chief executive Solly Mokoetle.

A parliamentary spokesman had said that the decision to exclude the media and public was because of what emerged from the briefing “related to pending litigation or may lead to litigation’’ and the committee wanted to demonstrate its respect for legal processes.

However, Sanef and the PGA said they were deeply concerned by the committee’s decision which had the effect of undermining constitutional values of openness and transparency relating to the affairs of the SABC, a public body, and therefore adversely affecting the constitutional rights of the public to receive information of clear public interest and importance.

The two organisations pointed out that meetings of parliamentary committees were open to the public and the media played a vital role in informing the public about parliament’s work so that it could participate fully in SA’s democracy – values upheld on numerous occasions by the courts. The issues to come before the committee about the public broadcaster were of overwhelming public interest and the reasons advanced for the closed hearing were not sufficient to warrant a ban on the media attending the hearing.

SANEF and the PGA call on the committee to proceed immediately with the hearings in public so that the public is informed of what is happening at the SABC.
In addition to the court’s requirement that the immediate SABC issue be dealt with in an open and transparent environment, Sanef and the PGA regard the court ruling as having a further highly important consequence in sending a warning to all parliamentary committees to desist from arbitrarily excluding the public from certain hearings which should be open to the public and to the media.

In a climate where SA is immersed in a debate over the seriously negative effects of the Protection of Information Bill on constitutional transparency and the public’s right to know, this interim order strongly discourages politicians from taking it upon themselves to decide what the public should know.

Issued by SANEF and PGA

Load More

Back To Top
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) remains committed to ensuring that this site is kept up to date and accurate. If you like our site or have suggestions on how best we can improve your experience on our website, please send us an email.
2024 © South African National Editors' Forum. All rights reserved. Developed by ALT Media.