Press freedom is an important pillar of democracy. It was one of the non-negotiables when SA crafted a new constitution after overcoming years of apartheid, where the media operated under extremely difficult circumstances.
It was the bravery of those who came before us – those who defied the odds and exposed the atrocities of the evil system of apartheid, despite the consequences that laid the foundations for press freedom. This resistance, including other forms of struggle, eventually led to the collapse of apartheid and the birth of a democratic SA.
That is why the drafters of the constitution deemed it necessary to protect the freedom of the media in order for the press to continue to play its role of watchdog to strengthen our democracy. Section 16 of the constitution guarantees the freedom of the media and the freedom to impart and receive information.
Of course, like all rights, press freedom has limitations. But the media has a crucial role to play in making sure those in power are held accountable. It also has an even bigger role in serving society. This means publications like Sowetan have to serve their audience by being on the side of the voiceless and the vulnerable.
The principle of open justice, as regularly affirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal, goes hand in hand with the public’s right to know. Which is why it was shocking this week that we were prevented by a magistrate from serving our purpose.
Our young and talented reporter was subjected to harassment and intimidation when the magistrate instructed her to take the stand and argue why she wanted to cover the case of of two suspects accused of swindling pensioners out of their retirement funds.
After 15 minutes of grilling, the magistrate ruled that our team could not record or take pictures in court but could sit in and listen, and on condition they didn’t take notes. This was a serious violation of media freedom. Court proceedings are meant to be open to the public, unless the court concludes that a party to the case could be prejudiced.
Despite our journalist’s promise to adhere to journalistic principles to ensure her coverage would be balanced and fair, the magistrate declined her application to cover the case. The alleged victims approached this newspaper after complaining about delays in the case. They put their hopes in the media to shine a light on the matter and to ensure transparency and openness in the justice system.
If such decisions are not condemned and challenged, this country will soon be on a slippery slope back to the dark old days where media rights were curtailed.
SOWETAN SAYS | Shocking attack on press freedom
The media has a crucial role to play in making sure that those in power are held accountable
Image: ANTONIO MUCHAVE
Press freedom is an important pillar of democracy. It was one of the non-negotiables when SA crafted a new constitution after overcoming years of apartheid, where the media operated under extremely difficult circumstances.
It was the bravery of those who came before us – those who defied the odds and exposed the atrocities of the evil system of apartheid, despite the consequences that laid the foundations for press freedom. This resistance, including other forms of struggle, eventually led to the collapse of apartheid and the birth of a democratic SA.
That is why the drafters of the constitution deemed it necessary to protect the freedom of the media in order for the press to continue to play its role of watchdog to strengthen our democracy. Section 16 of the constitution guarantees the freedom of the media and the freedom to impart and receive information.
Of course, like all rights, press freedom has limitations. But the media has a crucial role to play in making sure those in power are held accountable. It also has an even bigger role in serving society. This means publications like Sowetan have to serve their audience by being on the side of the voiceless and the vulnerable.
The principle of open justice, as regularly affirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal, goes hand in hand with the public’s right to know. Which is why it was shocking this week that we were prevented by a magistrate from serving our purpose.
Our young and talented reporter was subjected to harassment and intimidation when the magistrate instructed her to take the stand and argue why she wanted to cover the case of of two suspects accused of swindling pensioners out of their retirement funds.
After 15 minutes of grilling, the magistrate ruled that our team could not record or take pictures in court but could sit in and listen, and on condition they didn’t take notes. This was a serious violation of media freedom. Court proceedings are meant to be open to the public, unless the court concludes that a party to the case could be prejudiced.
Despite our journalist’s promise to adhere to journalistic principles to ensure her coverage would be balanced and fair, the magistrate declined her application to cover the case. The alleged victims approached this newspaper after complaining about delays in the case. They put their hopes in the media to shine a light on the matter and to ensure transparency and openness in the justice system.
If such decisions are not condemned and challenged, this country will soon be on a slippery slope back to the dark old days where media rights were curtailed.
How court barred our journalist from reporting on proceedings
Interrogation of journo reporting on court case condemned
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos