The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) stands in solidarity with calls for the release of investigative journalist, Hopewell Chin’ono, who was arrested and taken from his home in Harare on the 20th of July, 2020.
Press freedom and human rights organizations have written a letter to African Union Chair and the President of the Republic of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa.
The letter also calls for the guarantee that journalists across the continent are respected as essential workers throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and are not jailed for their work.
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) is deeply concerned that community media journalist, Paul Nthoba, has been forced to flee the country and seek refuge in Lesotho.
Nthoba was assaulted by members of the South African Police Services (SAPS) on 15 May 2020 while profiling the visibility of police members who were making sure that citizens were adhering to the Covid-19 lockdown rules and regulations. He was physically abused and beaten up in the township of Meqheleng, close to the Lesotho border.
Following this traumatic incident, Nthoba went to the Ficksburg police station to lay a charge but instead of being assisted by the police, he faced further abuse.
While at the police station, the same police officers that had assaulted him, arrived and wanted to bar him from opening a case, and instead they insisted that he should be charged for contravening the Disaster Management Act. We understand Nthoba was further assaulted while in the charge office.
Nthoba told SANEF that he decided to cross the border into Lesotho to seek refuge at the United Nations offices in Lesotho because he feared for his life. Following the assault, he has seen marked police vehicles patrolling his street and another parked in the street a few meters from his home, with no explanation. His family became extremely concerned and he decided to flee.
He reached out to the United Nations office in Lesotho and the Lesotho government and together they have been protecting him. He has been placed under quarantine due to the Coronavirus restrictions.
The same SAPS officers who assaulted him, remain on duty.
Nthoba has confirmed that the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID), an agency of the South African government responsible for investigating complaints against the SAPS and municipal police services, came to see him on Monday. He was in the process of completing his supplementary and detailed statement for IPID when he observed the intimidatory tactics of the SAPS officers.
Nthoba has pleaded for assurance from the SAPS that he will be safe.
SANEF Chairperson Mahlatse Mahlase said: “We need the Police to give assurance that he can return home and will be safe. It is unacceptable that a South African citizen must fear the very people who are supposed to protect him. We would also like to know what action the SAPS will be taken against the police officers that remain on duty in the small town”.
Finally, SANEF has been in contact with the Minister of Police and has also formally written to him. He has assured us that he will take this matter up with the national and provincial police commissioners to ensure that this issue is dealt with as a matter of urgency.
Note to Editors:The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) is a non-profit organisation whose members are editors, senior journalists and journalism trainers from all areas of the South African media. We are committed to championing South Africa’s hard-won freedom of expression and promoting quality, ethics and diversity in the South African media. We promote excellence in journalism through fighting for media freedom, writing policy submissions, research and education and training programmes. SANEF is not a union.
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) condemns another hostile attack against journalists by police at the scene of service delivery protests outside Port Elizabeth. Yesterday morning a team of journalists from the South African Broadcasting Services (SABC), although clearly identified, came under attack by riot police and were pelted with rubber bullets.
According to SABC Editor in Chief Ms Phathiswa Magopeni:
“We were informed by our regional editor, Diedre Uren that at 9 am yesterday our team, Zolani Moya and Gcobani Blom, were at the Motherwell intersection on the Addo Road outside Port Elizabeth covering a story about service delivery protests, when they came under fire from the police”. The protests had been taking place on and off for most of the week.
“They were covering the blocking of the roads”, says Magopeni. “The crew was clearly identifiable in a SABC branded bakkie. The cameraman was on the back of the bakkie filming when the radio reporter noticed an oncoming ‘Hippo’ riot vehicle. They immediately jumped down and tried to get into the vehicle to leave the area. The community was around them but peaceful.”
Says Magopeni, “Our vehicle was not blocking the road as it was parked on the side of the road. But police without warning started firing rubber bullets and as our team tried to flee, they were shot at and injured”.
Both journalists were taken to the hospital and received treatment. Fortunately, they are now stable.
Magopeni states, “This attack was unnecessary and extremely hostile. Every care is taken to train our journalists on what to do in hostile situations. They are told to clearly identify themselves which they did. It is a brazen attack that must be investigated at the very highest level of the police leadership”.
SANEF will table this matter at its upcoming meeting with the National Police Commissioner and the Ministry of Police. The attacks and assaults on journalists at crime scenes by police, and the censorship by police of journalists doing their job at crime scenes are on the increase. These actions prevent journalists from informing the public of the truth, a right enshrined and protected in our constitution. Service delivery protests are a common feature in our country and journalists have a right and a duty to covering these stories. The officer responsible must be held accountable.
Note to Editors:The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) is a non-profit organisation whose members are editors, senior journalists and journalism trainers from all areas of the South African media. We are committed to championing South Africa’s hard-won freedom of expression and promoting quality, ethics and diversity in the South African media. We promote excellence in journalism through fighting for media freedom, writing policy submissions, research, education and training programmes. SANEF is not a union.
President Cyril Ramaphosa with Sanef Acting Chairperson Katy Katapodis
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF), held a transparent and robust engagement with President Cyril Ramaphosa at Tuynhuys, Parliament in Cape Town, yesterday (Tuesday 3rd March 2020). SANEF members and senior journalists from across the media sector were invited.
The President agreed with SANEF that there was a need to reinvigorate our yearly cabinet / SANEF lekgotla and to hold interactions, on a quarterly basis.
He agreed that it was important for the media to interact with government at all levels. The President promised to facilitate these interactions.
The key issues, in our wide-ranging discussion, included SANEF’s Media Ethics and Credibility Inquiry, the budget speech, cuts to the public wage bill, the state of the economy, the restructuring of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) including Eskom, the President’s time in office and his leadership, and the media’s interaction with government and its leaders.
SANEF was particularly pleased to see that the country’s most senior editors and journalists attended this important event – which forms part of SANEF’s strategy to interact more often and more robustly with the Presidency in order to address any and all pressing and important matters related to the media industry.
Note for Editors: The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) is a non-profit organisation whose members are editors, senior journalists and journalism trainers from all areas of the South African media. We are committed to championing South Africa’s hard-won freedom of expression and promoting quality, ethics and diversity in the South African media. We promote excellence in journalism through fighting for media freedom, writing policy submissions, research, education and training programmes.
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) is deeply concerned by the increasing number of criminal attacks targeting journalists covering stories in the field. SANEF believes that every citizen should be seriously troubled by reports, including the most recent one when eNCA reporter Xoli Mngambi and a crew on assignment in Mamelodi East were robbed of their equipment on Wednesday afternoon.
This incident happened barely a week after KayaFM journalist Gavin Emmanuel was assaulted and injured while covering a service delivery protest in Ga-Rankuwa, north of Pretoria. The township had come to a standstill after main roads were blockaded with rubble and burning tyres.
In Wednesday’s incident, Mngambi and his team were robbed at gunpoint by criminals who fled with two news cameras and a tripod while they were filming a feature.
“The three assailants, with one wielding a gun in our faces, accosted and shoved us inside one of the rooms of the private clinic which was being filmed, while two other robbers took the crew’s equipment, loading it into their grey VW Polo getaway vehicle. They sped off into the township afterwards, taking with them the beautiful and heart-warming story of the nurses, that had just been filmed,” he said.
Mngambi posted on social media a picture of one of the tripods the robbers did not take as well as a short and hurried video clip, filmed from a distance. A grey VW Polo without licence plates, belonging to the three gun-wielding robbers, can be seen driving off.
They have opened a case of robbery at the Mamelodi East Police Station. eNCA said that “First Take” anchor Mngambi, producer Koketso Dlongolo, and camera operators Mbudzeni Bulasigobo and Gift Shabalala were at the Wellness Today Clinic when they were robbed.
These incidents are the latest in a string of attacks on journalists. These include:
In Embalenhle, Secunda, on February 6, freelance journalist Desmond Latham, as well as a female staff member from Frayintermedia and female Unicef employee were assaulted allegedly by members of a local taxi association.
Three journalists were held up at gunpoint and robbed of their belongings while covering a World Aids Day event in Khayelitsha last December.
A reporter was robbed of a cellphone after being surrounded by a group of men near a protest in Parkwood, Cape Town, in 2018.
SANEF is aware that there are other incidents, but not all are brought to the attention of the forum. SANEF believes that every citizen has to ensure that the right to freedom of opinion and expression for all is protected. Promoting the safety of journalists and combatting impunity for those who attack them are central elements as regards SANEF’s support for press freedom on all media platforms.
Attacks on media professionals are often perpetrated in non-conflict situations by organised opportunistic criminals, crime groups, militia and security personnel, making local journalists among the most vulnerable.
As Judge Daisy Molefe of the Equality Court stated in October last year: “It is incumbent on all organs of state, including the judiciary, to not only have regard to but to take positive steps to protect the safety and independence of journalists.”
We call on law-enforcement agencies not to ignore these incidents and to thoroughly investigate them and to bring perpetrators to book. It is only through the decisive and firm actions of state organs that criminals and members of society will stop attacking journalists.
Finally, we want to note that while these “real life” attacks are deeply worrying, the online attacks against journalists are also deeply concerning. We also call on journalists to follow the relevant codes within their news environments when communicating on social media. We call on all leaders of society including government, political parties and the platform operators to fight against all attacks on journalists.
Note for Editors: SANEF is a non-profit organisation whose members are editors, senior journalists and journalism trainers from all areas of the South African media. We are committed to championing South Africa’s hard-won freedom of expression and promoting quality, ethics and diversity in the South African media. We promote excellence in journalism through fighting for media freedom, writing policy submissions, research, education and training programmes.
Judge Raymond Zondo head of the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture.
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) has noted on 1st October 2019 the testimony of Colonel Kobus Roelofse at the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture and the further allegations from whistleblower Colonel Naidoo. Naidoo told the Inquiry yesterday that several journalists including senior journalist at Tiso Blackstar, Ranjeni Munusamy received financial benefits from Crime Intelligence.
SANEF notes the problems that have been created by Col Naidoo’s mention of the fact that “journalists have been paid” without mentioning names. We believe that it is essential that the names are revealed and that the journalists implicated are given the space to respond.
We note that the Press Council Code is clear that “paid for” also called “brown envelope journalism” is completely unacceptable.
Section 2 of the Code deals with “Independence and Conflicts of Interest”. The Code states that:
The media shall:
2.1 not allow commercial, political, personal or other non-professional considerations to influence reporting, and avoid conflicts of interest as well as practices that could lead readers to doubt the media’s independence and professionalism;
2.2 not accept any benefit which may influence coverage;
2.3 indicate clearly when an outside organization has contributed to the cost of newsgathering; and
2.4 keep editorial material clearly distinct from advertising and sponsored events.
SANEF champions ethical journalism. If anyone has any evidence of unethical journalism – including the very serious breach of accepting funds for journalism – we encourage them to go to the Press Council.
Further, we have launched our own independent Inquiry into Media Credibility and Ethics, chaired by retired Judge Kathleen Satchwell. We encourage any South African with evidence of journalists acting unethically or illegally to approach Judge Satchwell and the authorities, including the Zondo Commission. Please send submissions to – [email protected].
In terms of Munusamy, we again welcome the decision by Tiso Blackstar to grant her special leave. We note Munusamy’s strong denial of any wrongdoing, her detailed affidavit explaining the circumstances of her car repayments and related issues and her promise to cooperate fully with the Zondo Commission. We await the outcome of the Commission’s hearings and Tiso Blackstar’s internal investigation.
For more information please contact:
Mahlatse Mahlase – SANEF Chairperson 083 399-2852
Judy Sandison – SANEF Media Freedom Committee 082 571-3334
Kate Skinner – SANEF Executive Director 082 926 6404
his article was published last week Tuesday, Sept 17 in the Daily Maverick
Last week Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema declared that Daily Maverick, their investigative unit Scorpio, and independent investigative journalism unit amaBhungane would no longer be ‘allowed’ to cover EFF events or briefings. The ban imposed by the EFF on various media entities may well be unconstitutional as it seems to infringe on the right to freedom of expression guaranteed in section 16 of the Bill of Rights.
Anyone who has ever had a run-in with a bank, a cellphone provider, or any other large private entity will be aware that such private entities wield enormous power and that they often use this power to infringe on the rights of individuals. Similarly, anyone who has ever been turned away from a nightclub because of their race or has been falsely told that a rental flat is “no longer available” (also because of race) will know that it is not only the state that infringes on the rights protected in the Bill of Rights.
The drafters of the South African Bill of Rights were aware that power also resides in the private sphere and can and are often abused by private actors. They, therefore, rejected the traditional approach towards the protection of human rights which exclusively focused on the abuse of power by the state. Instead, they extended the direct and indirect application of the Bill of Rights to private parties. This means that in certain circumstances not only the state but also private individuals, organisations and institutions have a constitutional obligation to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights contained in the Bill of Rights.
The direct application of the rights in the Bill of Rights to private parties is mandated by section 8(2) of the Bill of Rights, which states that:
“A provision of the Bill of Rights binds a natural or a juristic person if, and to the extent that, it is applicable, taking into account the nature of the right and the nature of any duty imposed by the right.”
The wording makes clear that not all of the rights in the Bill of Rights will always bind all private institutions and persons. The nature of the right and the nature of the duty imposed by it may be such that a private institution or individual will not be in a position to limit the right in any way. For example, the right of detained and sentenced prisoners guaranteed in section 35(2) of the Bill of Rights will not normally place any obligations on private institutions or individuals as private individuals or institutions who do not legally detain and imprison people – the state does.
But private individuals and institutions will have a duty to respect many other rights – including the right to freedom of expression guaranteed in section 16 of the Bill of Rights. In Governing Body of the Juma Musjid Primary School & Others v Essay N.O. and Others, the Constitutional Court dealt with the extent to which section 8(2) will impose duties on private parties to respect specific rights in the Bill of Rights.
In that case, the court held that the right to basic education guaranteed in section 29 of the Constitution prohibits private parties from infringing on the right to education, for example, by failing “to respect the existing protection of the right by taking measures that diminish that protection held that right”.
The court then proceeded to explain:
“It needs to be stressed however that the purpose of section 8(2) of the Constitution is not to obstruct private autonomy or to impose on a private party the duties of the state in protecting the Bill of Rights. It is rather to require private parties not to interfere with or diminish the enjoyment of a right. Its application also depends on the intensity of the constitutional right in question, coupled with the potential invasion of that right which could be occasioned by persons other than the state or organs of state.”
When one applies these principles to the right to freedom of expression, it becomes clear that the right will often impose obligations on private individuals, organisations and institutions not to do anything that would interfere with the enjoyment of this right. Section 16 states – in part – that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes “freedom of the press and other media” and “freedom to receive or impart information or ideas”.
A private individual, organisation or institution may not have a positive obligation to promote the freedom of the media and may not have a constitutional duty to take steps to make it easier for individuals to receive or impart information, but does have a duty not to do anything that would “interfere with or diminish the enjoyment of a right” to freedom of expression.
Where private individuals, organisations or institutions take steps to prevent members of the media from doing their job, that private individual, organisation, or institution will be infringing on the right to freedom of expression because they would be interfering with or diminishing the enjoyment of the right.
For example, if EFF members again go on a rampage and trash a clothing store in some or other shopping mall, and the owners of the mall prohibit members of the media from entering the mall to try to stop them from reporting on the trashing of the store, this will constitute an infringement on the media’s right to freedom of expression.
Of course, in terms of section 8(3)(b) of the Bill of Rights courts are permitted to develop rules of the common law to limit the right that applies to private parties, provided that the limitation is in accordance with the limitation clause. In the example above, courts may develop common law rules to strike the correct balance between the right of owners to regulate access to their property and the right of the media to report on public events that occur on that property.
While the right will apply to a private party whenever that private party attempts to curtail the ability of the media to gather information and to report on a matter of public interest, the right would arguably apply more intensely and would have a more devastating impact if it is limited in ways that affect the democratic process. In such cases, the court would be more reluctant to impose limits on the infringed right in accordance with section 8(2)(b).
As the Constitutional Court has stated in S v Mamabolo (E TV, Business Day and the Freedom of Expression Institute Intervening) freedom of expression is important, among other reasons, because of its democracy-enhancing effects. In that case, the court held that freedom of expression:
“… lies at the heart of a democracy. It is valuable for many reasons, including its instrumental functions as a guarantor of democracy, its implicit recognition and protection of the moral agency of individuals in our society and its facilitation of the search for truth by individuals and society generally. The Constitution recognises that individuals in our society need to be able to hear, form and express opinions and views freely on a wide range of matters.”
The decision by EFF leader Julius Malema to ban certain media organisations from covering EFF events or briefings directly implicates the proper functioning of the democracy and it is highly unlikely that the court will sanction the limitation of the right.
The ban impacts negatively on the media, but – perhaps even more importantly – it impacts negatively on the ability of individuals to enjoy their right to freedom of expression. Where the media is hampered in doing their job this impacts on the ability of individuals in society to receive information, information that will enhance their ability to make informed and meaningful decisions about politics – including about their view of the EFF.
The fact that the EFF is a political party and therefore performs a public function intimately linked to our constitutional democracy places an even heavier burden on the party (as on any other political party) to respect the right to freedom of expression.
Unlike, say, the owners of a shopping mall, the EFF is a direct participant in democratically elected bodies and thus a primary political actor. This gives it immense power and influence not only over its supporters but also in the democratic process. Its decision to ban some media entities from covering its events or briefings may, therefore, have a significant impact on the ability of these media entities to do their job.
What makes things worse is that the ban was imposed to punish media organisations for reporting on alleged corruption and theft committed by EFF leaders. In other words, the EFF is trying to punish media outlets for doing their job. While it may not succeed, the EFF is attempting to get the banned media entities to stop investigating the alleged corruption and theft of its leaders. It is also sending a message to other media outlets to warn it to refrain from investigating and reporting on wrongdoing by EFF leaders. It is an act of intimidation aimed at avoiding any accountability and scrutiny by the media.
While this intimidation will obviously impact negatively on the affected media organisations, it is important to realise that they are not the only ones whose right to freedom of expression is being infringed. The EFF ban is ultimately aimed at ensuring that ordinary voters are deprived of all relevant information that would allow them to make an informed and reasoned assessment of whether the EFF is a party to be supported or rejected.
To some extent then, the “real” victims of this ban are voters. The EFF is trying to prevent voters from accessing negative information about the party. If the party succeeds it will rob voters of the ability to make an informed and reasoned decision about whether to support or reject the EFF. The ban is therefore at its heart anti-democratic.The banned media outlets, therefore, have an excellent chance of persuading a court that the EFF decision unconstitutionally infringes both on the freedom of the media and on the freedom of ordinary individuals to receive information that will help them to make proper political choices. DM
Guests attending the breakfast roundtable discussion on “The combating of harassment and abuse of journalists: Seeking new rules of engagement on September 28, 2019
A draft document has been released by the International Convention On The Safety And Independence of Journalists And Other Media Professionals.
The purpose of the Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the safety of journalists and other media professionals in times of peace and during armed conflict, and to safeguard their ability to exercise their profession freely and independently in an enabling environment, without facing harassment, intimidation or attacks against their physical integrity.
Helene Eloff’s Master’s Degree Research titled: “South Africa’s Media Defamation Law in a Constitutional, Digital Age” deals with the digitisation of journalism and our legal responses.
She has dedicated this research to those South African journalists who fulfil their mandate legally and ethically. She hopes that the contents of her research will contribute towards the research pool in both journalism and law.
Her dissertation finds that South Africa’s media law is unfair in that it differentiates between media defendants and non-media defendants. “The effects of doing so cannot be justified in terms of Section 36 of the Constitution,” she argues.
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.
By Pierre de Vos
