South Africans could be denied the right to watch “disruptive” conduct in Parliament in future. This is the upshot of a High Court ruling today.

Parliamentary proceedings have become contentious since the Economic Freedom Fighters’ #PayBackTheMoney challenges of President Jacob Zuma over the tax money spent on upgrades to his Nkandla homestead.

In February‚ electronic communication from parliament was cut for several hours ahead of Zuma’s state of the nation speech‚ preventing MPs‚ journalists and the public from making cellphone calls or tweeting from the parliamentary precinct.

In a majority ruling on Thursday‚ the Western Cape high court found against a number of media houses and institutions‚ including the SA National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) in the case they brought against parliament about the broadcast feed which is provided‚ showing proceedings in the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces.

Sanef and the other organisations had argued 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 while one dissented and agreed with the media companies.

Expressing disappointment at the ruling‚ Sanef chairperson Mpumelelo Mkhabela said in a statement: “Sanef is still convinced that the public would be better served by seeing all of what their representatives get up to in Parliament”.

Parliament’s Policy on Filming and Broadcasting‚ in operation since 2009‚ regulates recordings of Parliamentary proceedings for public broadcasting that is in the public interest and related to the main business of Parliament. This broadcasting‚ the policy states‚ should also be in conformity with acceptable standards of dignity‚ appropriate behaviour and conduct.

According to a statement issued by parliament today‚ the High Court accepted that “Parliament has the right to protect its dignity and to ensure that its legitimate business is broadcast ... This does not amount to censorship”.

The court found that‚ “when a member obstructs or disputes Parliament’s proceedings or unreasonably impairs Parliament’s ability to conduct its business in an orderly and regular manner acceptable in a democratic society‚ that member’s conduct is not legitimate Parliamentary business”.

“Accordingly‚ there is no obligation on Parliament to broadcast conduct that clearly obstructs or disrupts its proceedings and conduct that unreasonably impairs its ability to conduct its business in an orderly and regular manner acceptable in a democratic society simply because such conduct is not legitimate Parliamentary business.”

Dealing with the jamming device used on February 12‚ the parliamentary statement said the court could not find any blame that could be attributed to Parliament.

“We welcome the court’s distinction between matters that are in the public interest and matters of interest to the public‚” the parliamentary statement said.

Mkhabela said Sanef would study the judgment.

“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‚” said Mkhabela.

-Earlier this month‚ the Cape Town High Court ruled in favour of the Democratic Alliance to find that National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete did not have the power to use riot police to eject unruly MPs. Riot police were seen on national television dragging EFF MPs out of the chamber‚ kicking and screaming. The court said the legislation Mbete used to justify her action was unconstitutional. In response to the ruling‚ the EFF said that it would launch a civil claim against her for the forcible ejection of its MPs.