Editors have condemned the blocking of journalists from covering a case involving a man who allegedly drugged his wife and circulated videos of him raping her while she was unconscious.
The man, 34, appeared with another man, 48, in the Boksburg magistrate’s court on Friday after they were arrested separately on Thursday. Police suspect that the two, though unknown to each other, are part of a network that produces and sells illicit pornography on dark social media websites.
The two face charges including sexual assault, possession of an unlicensed firearm, possession, distribution, and manufacturing of child sexual abuse material, as well as contravention of the Cyber Crimes Act for sharing intimate images without consent of the victim.
A group of journalists who wanted to cover the case on Friday experienced difficulties, including being told to wait outside the courtroom by the magistrate while the case proceeded inside. They were also told to file individual applications to cover the case at least days before the matter is heard.
Ordinarily journalists make such applications on the day a case is heard, and a single application for multiple media houses is acceptable.
After the alleged interception, the group of journalists from various media houses lodged a grievance with the South African National Editors Forum (Sanef) and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).
Reggy Moalusi, the executive director of Sanef, condemned the treatment of journalists.
“It’s tragic and truly regrettable that our courts are sometimes used to shield perpetrators of heinous crimes from scrutiny. As the country’s editors’ forum, we expect presiding officers to act with heightened care before ordering any journalist out of court, on the odd occasion when this is necessary.
“In this particular case, the announcement of the appearance came through in the middle of the night [Thursday]. How, then, should media houses have made an application to be in court the previous day, before the media even knew of the arrests? This is a patent violation of the right of the media to exercise their freedom to report news without inhibitions.”
NPA spokesperson Magaboke Mohlatlole referred Sowetan to the justice department.
Terence Morapedi, spokesperson for the department, said they were aware of the matter after Sanef reported it to them.
“We will endeavour, within the scope of our mandate, to ascertain the nature of the challenge and to address it where it falls within our jurisdiction, while noting that the office is not in a position to interfere with the independence of the judiciary,” said Morapedi.
According to the journalists, they were ordered out of the prosecutor’s office when they requested details of the case.
Three journalists went into the magistrate’s chambers to request to cover the case with an application, but the presiding officer told them they should have made an application days earlier.
The magistrate requested an application from each media house and that it be served to the defence as well. However, the clerk of the court said one application representing all media houses would be enough.
The journalists were told to sit outside the courtroom from 10am until 12pm, waiting for their application to be considered.
The magistrate later made an order that journalists could not cover the case because the applications were not submitted properly and further ordered that no videos, pictures, notes, or any recordings be taken.
She said no one before the court could be named either. Journalists could only report that the accused appeared and the matter was postponed.
Sowetan
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.