Minister of Police Nathi Mthetwa and members of the police force (including the Police Commissioner) are – not surprisingly – talking a lot of rubbish and making idle threats against journalists who happen to belong to an independent (as opposed to a pro-government) news organisation.
Sadly for them, but luckily for the rest of us, these threats will amount to nothing. The media fraternity who are up in arms over these moves by the Minister and the Police Commissioner should therefore also calm down and should not be so easily intimidated by the Minister and the Police Commissioner who do not have the law on their side. Journalists should laugh and ridicule our Minister and our Police Commissioner, should taunt them for the way in which they are trying to find a scapegoat for their own incompetence and then laugh at them again.
Really, one should not take this empty bluster as seriously as they do. The threats by the Minister and the Commissioner are no more than hot air (and one is not sure from which orifices the hot air is actually escaping).
I strongly suspect that in the end, nothing will happen to eNews editor Ben Said and reporter Mpho Lakaje, who were recently served with subpoenas under the Criminal Procedure Act’s section 205 for protecting the identities of the men in a video broadcast on ETV – despite the fact that the police are pressing ahead with investigations against them.
Said and Lakaje are scheduled to appear in court on Monday, unless they hand over unedited footage taken of two alleged criminals who threatened crime and violence during the World Cup and unless they provide the Police with the names and contact details of the men they interviewed, as well as information about the firearms displayed in the programme..
Mthetwa said yesterday: “We are of the view that a friend of a criminal is a criminal” while Police Commissioner Bheki Cele lashed out at e.tv for airing the footage and for protecting the identities of the “criminals”. “ETV is a crime kisser and have expressed themselves as such. My question to them is that would they have protected their sources if they threatened to kill, rob and rape their mothers?” said Cele.
Section 205 allows a judge or a magistrate to summons anyone “who is likely to give material or relevant information as to any alleged offence”. A person who refuses to appear or fails to give the required information can be sentenced to imprisonment if the magistrate or the judge is of the opinion that the furnishing of such information is necessary for the administration of justice or the maintenance of law and order.
The constitutionality of section 205 was attacked in the Constitutional Court in 1996 in the case of Nel v Le Roux NO and Others but, as the Justice Laurie Ackerman pointed out, this section was not unconstitutional because it was qualified by section 189(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act which states that a person summoned in terms of section 205 is not obliged to testify or to answer any particular question put or to produce any book, paper or document if has a “just excuse” for refusing or failing so to answer or to produce.
And what would a “just excuse” be?
There is considerable case law on this issue and one cannot discuss it all here, but suffice it to say that in the Nel case the Constitutional Court has stated that it would at the very least mean that any person summoned in terms of section 205 would have a just excuse not to answer questions if answering the questions would unjustifiable infringe on his or her rights.
Well, the last time I checked section 16(1)(a) of the Constitution states that ”everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of the press and other media”. A journalist’s freedom to gather information and report it would be dramatically infringed if he or she could not keep the identity of their sources secret.
One could imagine situations in which a journalist would not have a “just excuse” not to provide the kind of information now demanded by the Minister because his or her freedom of expression would be limited by a larger obligation to protect society from calamity. For example, where a journalist obtains information about an imminent terrorist attack that will kill thousands of people, and there would be no other way for the police to prevent the terrorist attack, the journalist will not have a just excuse not to share the information and its source with the police.
But in this particular case, the journalists merely broadcast interviews with two alleged criminals who issued vague threats of future criminality. This obviously embarrassed the Minister and the Commissioner, but their embarrassment cannot trump the right to freedom of expression which safeguards the rights of the journalists and if they refused to answer questions I cannot imagine a court imprisoning them because they have no just excuse for doing so.
Surely also, if the Police did its job, it would be able to apprehend the alleged criminals by properly investigating the case without infringing on the rights to media freedom.
Of course in this case the journalists would therefore have a “just excuse” for not answering the questions so the Minister is barking up the wrong tree if he thinks he is going to get anything out of them.
If the Minister and the Commissioner are angry they should rather focus on how the Police can better investigate a crime and build cases that would lead to the successful prosecution of criminals and should not shoot the messenger merely because the messenger has embarrassed them and has shown how useless they really are.
What if these `criminals` had threated to kill, main and rob gay people. Would you have posted the same article? Food for thought!
All legal arguments set aside, why would e-tv in any case want to refuse to give this sort of information to the police? If the police actually wants to investigate an alleged criminal (as amazing as it sounds) , what harm would e-tv be doing in assisting the police? What could e-tv possibly stand to gain from protecting the identity of these people except maybe some more juicy stories in the future? I fail to see what “freedom” they are protecting here.
Unfortunately the article is more emotional (Mmmh) than substance.
My understanding is that 702 have a crime line. The tag line says, to paraphrase ‘If you are aware or know about a crime that is about to happen…..’
This is the media actively involved in trying to solve the crime problem. Preventing our fellow citizens from being victims.
I don’t understand the public interest position here.
Unfortunately the source is dead. One of the alleged criminals (who was out on bail!!??) has been captured through members of society reporting his whereabouts. Hopefully the last one will captured soon.
I fervently hope that the Ministry will proceed with this case for the following reasons
1. When do journalist stop being members of society vested with the same constitutional responsibilities (e.g to prevent harbouring criminals) as us.
2. What could be in the public interest in this story? My odds of being alive to see the world cup matches outside Gauteng have suddenly improved.
3. In court, I will at last be able to find out how journalists really, really go about gathering their stories. How are these editorial descisions taken. What really motivated these people to go on TV. What really happened behind the scenes in the build up to the story. One is aslo cognisant of the pending complaints against the M&G (Hlophe), Independent (President).
The reation from SANEF et al has been predictable
@ Dirk
I think the non-legal side of the story is that journalists will find their sources drying up if they cannot assure those sources of confidentiality.
A great deal of the investigative work done by the M&G over the past years would not have been possible without this protection.
Michael Osborne says: January 22, 2010 at 11:17 am
“I think the non-legal side of the story is that journalists will find their sources drying up if they cannot assure those sources of confidentiality.”
Except that in this case, as I understand it, the “source” committed suicide and e-TV has in fact disclosed him as their source….or you are only allowed to disclose your sources once they pass away??
Honestly, though, standards of professionalism at E-TV are pretty deplorable, do you not think?
Debs can be awesome, but I suppose she cannot be everywhere.
CHAPTER 16
OFFENCES, PENALTIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FINES
Offences
120. (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he or she contravenes or fails to comply with any—
(a) provision of this Act;
(b) condition of a licence, permit or authorisation issued or granted by or under this Act; or
(c) provision, direction or requirement of a notice issued under this Act.
(2) (a)Any person who is aware of the existence of a firearm or ammunition that is not in the lawful possession of any person and fails to report the location of the firearm or ammunition to a police official without delay, is guilty of an offence.
I think that journalists should be able to protect their sources. As someone else mentioned above, investigative journalism would be impossible without the protection that a journalist can offer an anonymous source. It is right to curtail to power of the state in this regard because virtually all governments would just punish the source, if they knew who it was.
I don’t think this applies in this case, even though the law is the same. These criminals were not providing a public service by ratting out government corruption or inefficiency. Instead they are just criminals. If you know someone is about to commit a crime, you have a moral duty to report it and stop it. Surely etv cannot argue that helping someone to commit crime is in the public good and is a moral action?
Nobody is arguing against the importance of keeping sources secret. But this is important because it is in the public interest for us to receive the stories from journalists. It is not so that journos have a right to express themselves, that’s a separate right.
Here, the public interst is clearly served by revealing who these people are and protecting us from their intended harm.
What become extremely clear when reading many posts on various forums about this story, is the amazing percentage of folks who obviously don’t have the foggiest notion about the importance of the Constitution or its ability, if supported sufficiently, to protect them, their families and society, especially in the long run.
View points appear to be largely emotional, arising from unthinking loyalty to a party, and/or fanatical. They are very much so, ‘short sighted’.
Bretts reference to (2) (a), Chpt 16, Offences, etc, may well be the achilles heel faced by eTV, thereby enabling the blame-shifter-media-busters inappropriate revenge.
I cannot see how the right to freedom of expression should yield in this instance. The media has a duty to report on the South African reality (no matter how unpleasant it might be) because this is a fundamental requirement for a fly functioning democracy. ETV did not instigate a crime – it reported on threats made by alleged criminals thus informing us all of a danger and allowing the police to do the work they are paid to do in any case (but which they might not have done had it not been for the report). This ETV did (albeit in a somewhat sensationalistic manner). If they had not reported on this, we would not have known that there were people like this out there targeted world cup visitors. This might have made us (but especially the Minister and the Commissioner) feel better because ignorance is bliss. It would definitely not have been in the public interest to censor such a report. If the journalists are forced to reveal their sources they will be unable to report on such threats and the police (and the political heads of the police) would not have been held accountable until it was too late. But because the story embarrassed the Minister and the Commissioner they are shooting the messenger and are trying to intimidate the messenger in order to prevent unfavorable stories from being broadcast. No one has suggested the stories were untrue or fabricated. No one has suggested ETV encouraged the alleged criminals to make the threats. All ETV did was report on the facts which the Minister and the Commissioner would rather have censored because it shows they are not doing their job.
If journalists are forced to reveal their sources they will not be able to get people to speak to them and we will not know what is going on in the country, we will not be able to hold the authorities accountable and our ability to make informed decisions about our government (and whether we want to vote for the party in government at the next election) would have been compromised thus limiting our right to vote. In the absence of compelling reasons (for example, that the information is urgently required by the Police to prevent imminent threats to life and limb and cannot possibly be obtained by the police in another manner) journalists will always have a “just excuse” as set out in section 189 for not revealing their sources as this protects our very democracy. Because people have a knee-jerk response to crime, they shortsightedly feel that the messenger should be damned. In the long run, this attitude will undermine their own rights.
Their source is dead. The criminals were part of the story and not the source.
Secondly, as responsible citizens, they would have had the duty to report this to the police, even if they thought the story was not newsworthy.
Let us not pretend that what they did was to alert police to information they might not have had otherwise, because they have not done that. They raised eyebrows.
A video of criminals is not proof that police are not doing their job, but that there are OTHER crimes they may not be alert to.
It is clear that the kind proffessor wished to be as sensationalist as eTV.
etv has not served us as the public in any way with this story, except to alarm us if they fail to give police access to protec us.
Xhanti says: January 22, 2010 at 13:46 pm
“A video of criminals is not proof that police are not doing their job, but that there are OTHER crimes they may not be alert to.”
I agree and I find it worrying that Prof would even suggest that because the Police didn’t know about these particular thugs, then they were not doing their job.
It is not only unreasonable but ridiculous to expect the police to know about the intentions of each and every (potential) criminal in this country.
I am with Prof all the way on this one. We are no longer in the Dark Days of Apartheid and the state should stop thinking it can bully its way through anything. ETV and the relevant journos are properly protected against invasions of their Constitutional rights like the one in question. That is apart from the privilege that arises in favour of the story-breakers and their sources and the role they play in news-reporting moving forward.
The public interest argument in this case is correct but it is misdirected. The argument should be in favour of ETV and the journos not against them. Of course we have a legitimate and legal right to be safe but it does not mean that those who point out that we may not be safe in some quarters should reveal their sources unless the threat concerned could not be obviated in any other way than by forcing the journos to reveal their sources. Considering our history of censure as a country, the Minister and his subordinates face an uphill battle to convince a court that there exists no “just excuse” to hide the sources, protect the integrity of the journos concerned in the eyes of the public and potential sources and the ability of ETV to report news in the future AFTER being forced to so reveal.
Sine says: January 22, 2010 at 14:20 pm
I wonder if you’d still advocate for protection of these so-called journos’ rights if one of the victims of these thugs, come the Wolrd Cup, was to be ur family members. I suspect not because you’ll then know that the bastard could have been behind bars if your beloved journos had pointed him out.
By the way I think it’s quite rich for people who always cry about violent crime in SA and yet they expect the police to spend their already stretched resources looking for people who have, at this stage, committed a very minor crime. Why not save the resources and simply bring these thugs to the police, without them having to go out looking?
And, to follow up on the prof, where is the “any alleged crime” that triggers the section? In Afrikaans the section refers to “‘n beweerde misdryf”.
But its not yet a crime to refer in an interview to vague happenings envisaged in the future….. So no crime has yet been committed. So the section can’t yet be used.
But it is the actual false posturing by the Minister, knowing that he is lying to the public, and is actually just trying to scare the media, that is disconcerting.
Maybe I am missing something but I am far from convinced that those interviewed by ETV committed any crime. First, like our President, those interviewed has a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, a right which the Minister and the Commissioner seems to ignore in this case. Second, the interviewees indicated that they intended to commit crimes against unspecified individuals in the future. No threat was issued against an identifiable individual and no specific intention was communicated to commit a specific crime on a specific day against a specific person. Instead the interviewees stated broadly that they intended to commit crime in future. Maybe an expert on criminal law can indicate how making statements about your intentions to commit unspecified crimes of which unspecified individuals will be victims in future constitute a criminal offense. The uproar here is the result of the bad publicity for South Africa but specifically for the government of the day which resulted from these vague statements. The Minister, the Police and the Commissioner are completely overreacting. As Business Day points out in its editorial today the African National Congress Youth League’s Mpumalanga secretary, Isaac Mahlangu, issued a statement in which he threatened violence against whistle-blowers who supplied City Press with information about alleged corruption in the National Youth Development Agency. He later repeated the threat: “We want to give them a warning — the machine gun is hot and ready.” The Minister and the Commissioner did not jump up and down then and the Youth League member was not arrested.
Prof: Comments on various blogs, actions by the so-called leaders of this country, and my being a westerner, born and raised, yet in SA for 10 years, and that entire time within the townships, I would like to say the following:
I don’t think that the black majority can get it sufficiently for this country to possibly advance. They simply didn’t have the advantages to prepare themselves for a modern global world, ruler of a country which could change everything in Africa.
That said, and considering how dangerous the period we are living in, in SA, I would like to encourage those, and I understand the majority of these who would listen, will be white, to band together to support the Constitution, and the rule of law. I think, as a white (not my fault), that the only, and I mean ‘only’ opportunity we have is to insist, daq vir daq, on the Constitution, and put all our weight and money behind that.
I know the wealth of the white community. We have much to lose, and not just wealth, not only for ourselves, but those who work for us, who we hold dearly, for not all whites are racists as you likely know.
As the son of a leading western politician, well versed in justice, rule of law, clear Democratic Constitutions… I truly believe this is the only and most viable venue left to us (us… those who believe in the rule of law, and who want all SAricans to benefit).
What if the whole thing was staged? Looking at the mischievous manner it was reported and broadcast, I really would be surprised if it was not [staged].
Is that not typical?
Once again the Gun Gestapo deny objective reality.
Want to grab law-abiding people’s registered guns but resist – kicking and screaming – enforcement of the gun control laws already on the statute books and lack the intestinal fortitude to take on stupid career-criminals acting like bigshots.
Nice!
I POSTED THE APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE FIREARMS CONTROL ACT!
Sure, there are criminals right across the world who have so much respect for the criminal justice systems of their countries that they are on the phone right now to local TV stations inviting journalists to come and see how they go about entertaining tourists to their countries.
Look people, am I mistaken or do I understand that Cele et al. had in fact arrested one of alleged criminals shown on e-tv? Now HOW did they do that, did a sangoma throw the bones and told them about these two tsotsies? NO! E-TV did it for them! There was the footage, there was the outcry, there were leads and voila! Cele got his guys!
What a perfect example of how the media and the cops can work together to catch potential criminals! So Cele should in fact THANK e-tv instead of dragging them to court! He should ENCOURAGE them to interview all the hundreds of criminals who are loading their guns AT THIS VERY MOMENT to happily shoot someone through the head for a Nokia.
If Cele had any but ANY strategic faculties he would have relaxed in his Lazy Boy and quietly let the storm pass without creating one himself in a beer can and, when the time was right, hit the tsotsies. The journalists wouldn’t have to reveal any identities, sources would not commit suicide, and the tsoties would be behind bars!!
Don’t they do IQ tests on cops anymore?!
Yes, but for what crime will that alleged criminal be prosecuted by cowboy Cele? Certainly not for the “crime” of expressing his intention to commit something against an unidentified stranger who as yet has not even booked a ticket to the RSA.
I POSTED THE APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE FIREARMS CONTROL ACT!
Pierre is E-TV’s resident Constitutional expert so this blog might be skirting pretty close to conflict-of-interest.
Would it not be hilarious if I could convince our guys to push a private prosecution (if Mthethwa lets E-TV off the hook) just to see E-TV’s resident Constitutional expert justify an E-TV infringement of the gun control laws?
Seems to me, that eTV, by broadcasting this, did actually inform the police of the inherent danger. Unfortunately, no humility with the ruling elite, pity, just ego.
@Michael
“The non-legal side of the story….”
Why non-legal? I thought the reasoning is as follows: the protection of freedom of speech includes, at least for the press, an element of freely imparting information to society that is in the public interest and in order to do so, the press must rely to a certain extent on protecting the confidentiality of their sources. Press freedom includes the right of journalists to protect their sources – so the argument goes. Although no many courts agree, but there seems increasing acceptance of the argument that relies on a direct connection of journalistic sources with the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press – in particular ccompared to twenty, thirty years ago. See for one of the most passioned defences of legal protection of a privilege for journalists – the minority opinion of Justice Douglas in the US Supreme Court case of Branzburg v Hayes in 1972. Despite the 5-4 ruling of the US Supreme Court, some lower cours in the US subsequently recognised a qualified privilege.
I agree with the argument that protecting the confidentiality of journalistic sources is a very important social good and that there should be a privilege for journalists not to reveal their sources, but this should not be absolute; there are limitations as PdV indicates – an imminent threat to life, criminal offence etc. .
I would say that if there is a compelling interest for the state, and the information cannot be obtained by any other means, and this is related to an alleged criminal offence that would threathen life and security of other persons (which is different to exposing corruption in the government or corporate sector), then journalistic privilege should not trump the state’s interest in the administration of justice. I am not so sure that the e-tv case is a simple case in which freedom of speech will not yield – the court will have to balance press freedom with the right of society’s right to be protected against crime.
On contradictions: PdV argued not so long ago that advocates who received confidential information… or rather that Jacob Zuma’s attorney, Hulley, should not be allowed to receive confidential documentation that had been leaked to him from whatever source, and that could assist his client. His line of reasoning would impy the closure of the M&G – no Oilgate, no Watergate and all other -gates when applied to journalists.
PS Michael Osborne – an excellent article on the Reparations Case in the newspaper last week!
I wonder what Sipho the taxi-driver is going to think of the equal protections-clause when he gets locked up because one of his passengers was carrying an unregistered firearm and he thinks back to all the pleas on this blog for E-TV not to be held to the same standard that he is now being held.
Pierre De Vos says:
January 22, 2010 at 15:51 pm
I was wondering if I’m missing something as well. I did not see the etv broadcast, but I simply don’t understand what crime the “criminals” have committed. They certainly did not go far enough to have attempted to commit a crime, and no conspiricy to commit a crime from what I have read.
<<>>
(ETV REPORTER EDITOR PROGRAM DIRECTOR NEWS ANCHOR ETC ETC ETC)
who is aware of the existence of a firearm or ammunition that is
<<>>
(THE CRIME YOU ARE TRYING SO HARD TO FIND)
<<>>
(ETV REPORTER EDITOR PROGRAM DIRECTOR NEWS ANCHOR ETC ETC ETC)
the location of the firearm or ammunition to a police official without delay
(THE CRIME PIERRE IS TRYING SO HARD TO FIND),
is guilty of an offence.
As the Soviet empire was disintegrating Vladimir Posner a Soviet journalist used to claim the press was freer in the Soviet Union than it was in the United States.
In recent years American press freedom has eroded. Many other countries are now ranked freer than the United States — The international free-press advocates Reporters Without Borders ranked us 53rd tied with Botswana Croatia and Tonga,open to subjective judgment tho..sobering to see we no longer anywhere near the top. Our Bush era being more sobering than anything we could have envisaged.
However the U.S. press remains freer than the press elsewhere in a few respects.
First our law provides significantly greater protection for the press against libel suits especially by government officials. In many countries libel is a bullying tool for officials and the powerful to silence dissent. Under the 1964 decision in New York Times vs. Sullivan insults parodies and vicious criticism of officials are protected by the First Amendment. Our law protects the press against almost any attempt by government to impose a “prior restraint” on what can be published. That is the government is not allowed to censor in advance information the press may wish to publish. The famous “Pentagon Papers” case in 1971 allowed the New York Times and the Washington Post to publish information about a classified Defense Department study on American involvement in Vietnam despite the government’s contention that publication would impair national security. Uniquely our law protects the advocacy of dangerous potentially divisive ideas. One can preach overthrow of the government — domestic “regime change” — religious hatred racial discrimination and even criminal activity. Under the Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in Brandenburg vs. Ohio government may not suppress ideas however repugnant to most unless their expression amounts to incitement to imminent unlawful acts.
Sotomayor points out in the Quattrone case because a ‘responsible press has always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the criminal field,’ the protection against prior restraint carries particular force in the reporting of criminal proceedings. Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 559-60 (quoting Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 350, 16 L. Ed. 2d 600, 86 S. Ct. 1507 (1966)). A prior restraint is not constitutionally inoffensive merely because it is temporary,” she wrote. However the Dow Jones case i understand a note was available from other sources, & being the case, where the note had already been published, albeit, without being authorized for publication, one would assume the need to protect Foster’s personal privacy no longer applies if it had already been violated. In a high profile case such as that one, a real copy of the note is crucial to verify facts, and is information that the public should have access to. Reporters should be granted privileges to do their jobs, but privilege doesn’t equate to immunity, which is essentially what some claim they have. I can understand reporters needing protection from subpoenas; however, exempting reporters from prosecution in some matter ergo Watergate scandal, this would be a gross misunderstanding of the justice system. The issue of press freedom and leadership is a crucial issue for our times in terms of freedom and democracy globally. Press freedom is very close to politics. What could be more invasive on politicians than a free press? What is it that could enfranchise people more than a free press?
The SA Police Commissioners et el in South Africa have recently been much criticized in the press of late. Are they de-facto politicians or the police? In my personal opinion in South Africa, the issue of corruption and the issue of press freedom, have political impacts, & are, essentially issues of economic development. Corruption is the largest single inhibitor of equitable economic development in Africa; hence a free press hampers such pursuits. Corruption is (not) a unique characteristic of only developing countries. It is, I regret ever present.
Most people in African countries don’t trust their governments. They need to … be able to express themselves. They need to elect their own local people and gain access and representation. A free press is absolutely vital to that objective. If you remove the right to voice and to exposure of issues, you remove the right for equitable development. Freedom of the press is not just a term or cliché; it’s not an extra. It is absolutely at the core of equitable development. If you cannot enfranchise poor people, if they don’t have the right to expression, if there is no searchlight on corruption and inequitable practice, you cannot build the public consensus to bring about change. A free press is at the very centre of effective development especially in Africa. The current & past (recent) assaults on freedom of the press, from a country that preaches democracy & a constitutionally value laden society simply because of alleged future threat of criminal activity which by most definitions does not amount to imminent unlawful acts?
By all intense and purposes the argument presented above ” What if these `criminals` had threated to kill, main and rob gay people. Would you have posted the same article? Food for thought!”
Testimony again to a country at war with its own constitution & spelling.
Brett Nortje says:
January 22, 2010 at 12:05 pm
its not as cut and dry as you think it is.
The so called criminals vs media freedom and not to reviel source, you first need to require a balance between the interest in convicting a particular wrongdoer and the general public interest.
You do ths by doing a simple test
i) the information sought cannot be obtained elsewhere ( I heard on the news the police caught the one guy already that was interviewed) so clearly the police can get there own sources
ii) the information must be highly relevant for the purpose for which it is sought
iii) public interest in the information significantly outweighs the harm to freedom of expression of the disclosure ( is the public interest only on those 2 criminals or is the public more concerned with the entire network of criminals?)
We need to now look at the companies code of conduct. The e-tv code of conduct binds its editorial staff to “(u)se all legal means to
protect the confidentiality of sources”.
The Star’s code of ethics states that its journalists “are bound to protect
confidential sources of information”.
Die Burger’s ethics code states that “journalists are obliged to protect the
sources of confidential information, and may not divulge them to anyone
except the editor or the editor’s representative” (our translation).
The Mail & Guardian’s Professional Code provides that “(i)f a reporter
undertakes to protect the confidentiality of the source, it is expected that this
is upheld, no matter what threats or inducements are offered to break the
agreement”.
These are binding agreements.
We have already noticed the negative effect of subpeoenas and the police trying to interfer with in the medias editorial process. what happend due to the fault of the police? a reliable source was killed, committed sucide. whos fault is that now the media or the police? This person trusted the media and risked his life. Clealy the subject was suicidal, if the media knew this and reported straight to the police, they would of knownly assisted in the suicide.
Ether way it is now clear that Criminal Procedure Act’s section 205 needs proper guidlines for subpeonas
Section 39 (1) (2) & (3) which provides for consideration by South African courts of international law and foreign law.
There is also the “Munich Chapter” which is quite clear on the requirement on journalists to protect sources. It states that journalists should “observe professional secrecy and not divulge the source of information obtained in confidence”
Not only that but subpeoenas fly in the face of internation standards and international court cases, one of which is Jonathan Randal who interviewed a self confessed terrorist Bin laden and the international courts panel agreed with Randal and his lawyers that the personal safety and independence of journalists could be jeopardised if he was forced to testify.
Those 2 journos on etv’s safety could of been or be jeopardised.
Journalist have an ethical obligation, the same obligation that applies to doctors and lawyers.
The level of emotional charged vitriol, and most probably the animosity you habour against the two gentlemen, stand in the way on an otherwise interesting point you could be making. The charge you make of Bheki Cele’s “incompetence” is simply unfounded. And more shocking is the failure to even try and justify this charge with some facts. Leaving one to think that you perhaps see the incompetence of the Police through the E.tv’s stunt. After reading it, i kinda feel, jah but what’s the point – you don’t seem to invite a rationale debate, afterall.
Government warns World Cup stab vests useless against taxi fenders
http://www.hayibo.co.za/articles/view/1212/Government_warns_World_Cup_stab_vests_useless_against_taxi_fenders.htm
Wow!
It is a pity that this blog is going nowhere. What happened to the search for truth? I am not talking about my viewpoint that the Minister and that guy who dresses like a movie pimp should forget about S205 and charge the E-TV crew under S120(2)(a) of the FirearmsControlAct. That is unrebutted.
What concerns me most is that Pierre did not ram the point home forcefully enough that the most egregious manifestation of the incompetence of the Minister and the Police is the culture of impunity that flourishes in this country. Pierre took flak from the ANC’s apologists who were being deliberately obtuse and refused to connect the dots.
Phoning a TV station inviting them to come see what crimes you are going to commit against tourists and then waving an unlicensed pistol about is a manifestation of a culture of impunity. (Are they escapee from Groendakkies?) Just as is a taxi-operator hosing down – with an assault rifle – a bus filled with members of the public, because it is diminishing the profitability of his route.
The fact that E-TV employs a bunch of irresponsible boneheads who are completely lacking in judgement is neither here nor there. That is a characteristic of prison populations across the world.
Some of the top legal scientists in the country told us in Makwanyane what the only way is to address that culture of impunity.
The Minister was supposed to be a new broom that would sweep clean. In a year he has done nothing to dent that culture of impunity.
Oh, I forgot, the guy who dresses like a movie pimp issued shoot-to-kill orders. We all saw the tragic consequences.
“A 25-year-old contract killer has accused an influential ANC leader in Mpumalanga of offering him R100000 and a cushy government job if he poisoned government officials who were blocking access to tenders linked to the 2010 soccer World Cup. …
“The assassin said many people lived in fear of the ANC leader he had named. ‘This politician must be exposed and expelled from the ANC in order to stop his reign of terror in Mpumalanga. I am scared of him. Even those in the higher echelons are scared of him because he is too dangerous. I don’t want to go on killing innocent people,’ he said. However, he did not admit to any killings.”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article295253.ece
“We are of the view that a friend of a criminal is a criminal” pronounced our Commissioner.
Who would that be this time – the Sunday Times, the assassin, the politician or all of the above?
this is jst giong anywhere!
this is jst giong nowhere!
Maggs, these people seem to communicate at your level?
Can’t you tell them to f.o.?