SOWETAN | Access to courts by media vital

In 2020 the Magistrates' Commission published guidelines for media access to courts. 

The guidelines state that when considering the media’s application to cover case proceedings, the court must be mindful of the tension between the right to freedom of expression and the principle of open justice on one hand, and the right to a fair trial, as well other competing constitutional rights such as the privacy of the witnesses, on the other. 

The guidelines place the responsibility on courts to, as far as possible, harmonise these constitutional rights with one another using their discretion, to balance the degree of risk involved in allowing coverage as well as ensuring a fair trial. 

The experiences of journalists in this country, including those of this publication, suggest that these guidelines are frequently not followed fairly by magistrates, who often impose unreasonable and inexplicable restrictions to media coverage of court proceedings. 

The trial of the VIP police officers who allegedly assaulted motorists while transporting deputy president Paul Mashatile last year is the latest case in point where strict restrictions on the media appear to go beyond what is a reasonable balance between competing rights. 

Randburg magistrate Abdul Khan ordered on Monday that while the media may report on the case, clips of witness testimonies may not be used in any bulletins or any delayed proceedings until after the conclusion of the trial. 

No live-streaming or broadcasting of any testimony will be permitted and no names of any witnesses may be published or reported without their individual consent to journalists.

While the need to protect witnesses is understood and accepted as may be necessary, the far-reaching limitations placed by the court on the practical ability of journalists to do their work, despite its claim to the contrary, goes against the spirit of open justice. 

It must also be understood in the context of a broader posture of hostility that court officials have displayed against journalists in recent years. 

This not only undermines our right as journalists to work but importantly, it infringes on the right of the public to know. 

The court’s failure to balance these rights with those of witnesses in a harmonious manner is deeply troubling – especially on a case involving those who are accused of the violent abuse of state power.