The South African National Editors Forum (SANEF) wishes to strongly condemn on 11 September 2019 the escalating harassment and abuse of journalists in the country.
SANEF has learnt with sadness of an incident on Tuesday where Journalists Alex Mitchley of News24, Hanti Otto of Netwerk24 and Pule Letshwiti from etv were approached and threatened by a state witness in the Nicholas Ninow case.
Ninow is the man who pleaded guilty on Tuesday to raping a seven-year-old at a Dros restaurant last year. He pleaded guilty to rape, possession of drugs and defeating the ends of justice — but pleaded not guilty to assault.
According to Mitchley, the witness approached the journalists very angrily outside the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria on Tuesday during a tea break, asking why media houses named him. It was explained that there was no court order not to name the witness as he testified in an open court. He then looked at the journalists and said, in Afrikaans, that he was going to slit their throats even making a throat-slitting gesture with his thumb while smiling and laughing.
“I told him to leave us alone and would inform the court of his threats. He tried following to apologize but I told him to get away from me as he had just threatened our lives,” Mitchley said.
The witness came to court to confront journalists as he finished testifying on Monday.
The harassment of journalists, not just by authorities and politicians, but lately general members of the public in protest areas, is a phenomenon that has prompted growing concerns for SANEF in recent months.
SANEF notes that while retaliation for the content of professional output is common to all journalists, female journalists face an additional burden in that they are also attacked purely based on their gender.
SANEF wishes to caution against impunity for threats of any nature and crimes against the media because it fuels and perpetuates the cycle of violence and the resulting self-censorship deprives society of information and further affects press freedom. It also directly impacts the United Nations’ human rights-based efforts to promote peace, security, and sustainable development.
On Economic Freedom Front (EFF) leader Julius Malema
SANEF also notes the raging debate on the matter of 702 journalists, Barry Bateman, and his uttering of an unsavoury word in public allegedly aimed at EFF leader Julius Malema. SANEF notes the concerns raised by the supporters of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF). We also note that employer Prime Media has apologised and has launched an investigation into the matter.
SANEF does not condone the unprofessional behaviour on the part of any journalist. However, we believe this should not be used as an excuse to trigger an all-out attack on the media and journalists as a collective. Rather than a verdict being debated on social media, we ask that this matter be dealt with via the media house concerned.
For more information please contact:
Sam Mkokeli – SANEF Media Freedom Chairperson, 082 084 2051
Mary Papayya – SANEF Media Freedom 082 379 4957
Kate Skinner – SANEF Executive Director 082 926 6404
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) notes and welcomes the public debate in the wake of our Equality Court application against the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and its leader, Julius Malema. We believe that this discussion will strengthen and improve our national discourse on the importance of media freedom and freedom of expression, which we fundamentally stand for and promote.
Some of the commentary expressed has misinterpreted our case, which was brought under Section 10 of the Equality Act, and falsely accuses SANEF of undermining freedom of expression. This could not be further from the truth (our full set of court papers is available at https://sanef.org.za/sanef-vs-eff-court-papers-2/).
SANEF and five journalists are seeking relief against the EFF and Malema following a spate of abuse and harassment by people purporting to be EFF supporters against journalists who had been specifically named by Malema. At the heart of our case is the singling out of targeted individual journalists by Malema and the EFF leadership and the creation of an enabling environment for abuse and harassment to be levelled against them.
SANEF and the journalists approached the Equality Court on legal advice as we believe that the conduct of the EFF and their supporters constitute hate speech and harassment against the named journalists.
SANEF’s choice of lodging the complaint in the Equality Court and using the Equality Act
SANEF approached the Equality Court as we believed this court was both appropriate and relatively expeditious. For reasons beyond the control of SANEF, this case is being heard almost eight months after it was lodged. This is unfortunate but regardless of that delay, SANEF remains of the view that the Equality Court is an appropriate court.
In addition to infringing the constitutionally protected freedom of the media, we believe that the statements by the EFF and Malema as well as the resulting conduct of the EFF and their supporters constitute hate speech and harassment in terms of the Equality Act.
Section 10 of the Equality Act states: “[N]o person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to –
(a) Be hurtful;
(b) Be harmful or to incite harm;
(c) Promote or propagate hatred.
This section does not require hate speech to involve incitement to imminent violence, as wrongly quoted by some commentators.
Sections 10 and 11 of the Act prohibit hate speech and harassment respectively based on expressly prohibited or similar grounds that negatively affect human dignity and enjoyment of rights, such as, in this case, the complainants’ occupation as journalists.
According to the EFF’s papers in the Equality Court, the basis of this abuse has been the complainants’ occupation as journalists and the perceived bias in their reportage on the EFF. While SANEF welcomes fair criticism of journalists, we cannot condone individuals being subjected to harassment or hate speech based on their occupation, in contravention of the Equality Act.
The trigger for the case
On 20 November 2018, Malema made a statement outside the Zondo Commission during which he named several journalists whom he perceived to have been biased in their reportage against the EFF and in favour of the EFF’s political rivals. He identified these journalists as “the enemy” who need to be dealt with decisively. These statements were also shared on Twitter by the EFF in addition to other tweets by the leadership of the EFF singling out and targeting specific journalists.
The journalists named by Malema have been subjected to a barrage of abuse and harassment by purported supporters of the EFF, ranging from name-calling and insults to threats of violence and calls for the addresses of journalists to be made public. This abuse appears to be a direct result, and in support, of the statements made by the EFF. SANEF has made Malema and the EFF aware of the results of their utterances and has requested that they condemn the abuse on the part of their purported supporters. They have however refused to do so. This has created an environment which enables the abuse and harassment of journalists whose reportage the EFF and its supporters do not agree with.
Max du Preez, one of the applicants in the matter, was one of the journalists named by Malema outside the Zondo Commission. In his affidavit before the court, he details what he believes to have been the impact of Malema’s words.
“I attended the Zondo Commission hearings on Wednesday 21 November 2018. I left after lunch. While I was waiting for my Uber driver to collect me (right next to the BP garage), some of the EFF protestors walked by. One of them recognised me and shouted my name. About a dozen of the protestors then mobbed me, shouting threats and abuse at me. One threat I remember was ‘You’re not safe on these streets, you white bastard’. I was distressed by this incident and feared for my safety. Fortunately, two policemen were very close by and intervened. The protestors then moved away and I was not harmed. It did make me wonder, though, what could have happened if there were no policemen around.’
Three days after Malema’s speech, Ranjeni Munusamy, one of the applicants, was intimidated at a shopping mall. She states in her affidavit:
“At approximately 18:00 on that day, I visited a shopping centre near my house. I go there often on my way home from work. I do not wish to disclose the precise location because I do not want a repetition of what happened on the day. While shopping, I noticed three men looking at me. As I walked past them, they repeatedly called my surname in a mocking tone. I tried to ignore them, walking past them quickly. The men were waiting for me at the entrance of the shop when I left. As I passed them they hissed at me and shouted my name. I was so distressed by the incident that I tweeted what had happened. As a consequence, I am wary of going out to public places.”
SANEF believes and has argued in court that these and other online forms of abuse, harassment and hatred levelled at the applicants were ‘directly’ as a result of Malema’s speech outside the Zondo Commission.
Sanef Chair Mahlatse Mahlase greets EFF leaders Julius Malema and Mbuyiseni Ndlozi at the Equality Court
The purpose of the case
The purpose of our complaint is not to stifle criticism of the media and journalists – the issue is that we believe that the comments by the EFF, Malema and Malema’s purported supporters go beyond fair criticism of the media and constitute hate speech under the Equality Act.
SANEF had initially attempted to resolve its concerns with the EFF through direct engagement and twice requested a meeting. However, the EFF refused to meet with SANEF. In the end, we had no option but to seek legal recourse.
The crux of SANEF’s and the journalists’ complaint is the nature and effect of Malema’s and the EFF’s statements. SANEF believes that Malema has been shown to make inflammatory statements which he is aware will incite a violent and abusive response from his purported supporters and that he has refused to condemn the abuse when it is brought to his attention. As the leader of the third biggest party in South Africa, Malema should be aware that his and the EFF’s words and actions, or lack thereof, have consequences. They should also be held responsible for those consequences. Furthermore, they have to protect the rights enshrined in the Constitution and a duty therefore to condemn the violation of media freedom which has resulted from their statements.
Ultimately, after our failed attempts to meet with the EFF leadership and try to resolve the matter amicably, we had no option but to approach the Equality Court for the relief we are seeking. The alternative was not an option: to do nothing and wait for a journalist to be assaulted, injured or killed before we approach the courts to determine if the EFF’s utterings meet the test for hate speech.
Dr. Joe Thloloe Chair of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into interference in the Decision-making in the SABC Newsroom.
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) notes the findings and recommendations of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into interference in the Decision-making in the Newsroom of the SABC between the years 2012 and 2017.
We note the chilling findings that the “SABC suffered from the capricious use of authority and power to terrorise staff and to deflect the Corporation from its mandate and its Editorial Policies” and that the Inquiry panel, “found an organisation crippled by anger, fear and frustration”.
You can download the report of the commission here:
We also note the finding that, “a witch hunt for enforcers will not heal the SABC” and that no “direct link” was found between instructions from ANC headquarters, Luthuli House and the SABC newsroom.
While we respect the finding from Dr. Joe Thloloe that there was no evidence of direct political interference from ANC headquarters, we note with concern his utterance that the “spectre of the ANC hovered over the newsroom.” We thus implore the new custodians of the SABC newsroom to safeguard the public broadcaster from any political, commercial or private interference in the future. Concrete mechanisms must be implemented to ensure this.
SANEF notes a number of positive recommendations. For instance, we welcome and applaud the suggestion that the Group Executive: News should be designated as Chair of the Editorial Policy and Ethics Committee and that this position should report to the GCEO. We welcome the recommendation that this committee becomes the highest point of upward referral for editorial line managers and that it should uphold the Editorial Policies and the highest editorial and ethical standards.
We also believe that the suggested creation of a News and Current Affairs Advisory Committee is positive, “consisting of at least three people, for example, a retired editor, a person who is or was teaching journalism ethics at a tertiary institution, and a retired judge”. We believe that the establishment of these committees will go a long way to maintaining editorial integrity at the public broadcaster and that they will ensure that journalists have a place to go when interference creeps in.
We commend the SABC Board for approving the Report and look forward to the corporation finalizing its Editorial Policies before the end of September 2019.
We wish the SABC strength and every success as it takes steps to implement these recommendations. We need the SABC to deal decisively with its past editorial woes.
Sam Mkokeli – SANEF Media Freedom Chairperson, 082 084 2051
Judy Sandison – SANEF KZN Convenor 082 571 3334
Kate Skinner – SANEF Executive Director 082 926 6404
Manage Consent
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorised as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyse and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. Opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always active
Necessary cookies are essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Analytics
Analytics cookies are used to track user behaviour on our website. We process these cookies to understand user engagement and improve user experience on our website.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.