Supreme Court of Appeal s1

SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA STATEMENT – SABC V DOWNER NO AND SHAIK

FROM: The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

Date: 24 August 2006

Status: Immediate

Asserting its constitutional right to freedom of speech and to impart information to the public, the SABC applied to the Supreme Court of Appeal for leave to televise and sound record the proceedings in the pending Shaik criminal and asset forfeiture appeals. Its declared purpose was, in view of intense public interest, to bring live TV and radio coverage to the public and to include highlights package coverage in its news broadcasts. All the parties involved in the appeals opposed the application.

When the subject of televising the appeals was raised early in August the President of the Court directed that visual footage could be filmed but without sound. The SABC’s view was that this would be insufficient for the exercise of its rights and brought the application.

In its judgment the Court pointed out that the case involved a head-on clash between competing constitutional rights: those of the public broadcaster and those of the State and Shaik to a fair court hearing of their dispute and, in addition, Shaik’s right to a fair trial (including an appeal).

The Court said that the appeals would in any case attract great press publicity and to permit live television coverage as well would hamper counsel and the court in focusing on the long and detailed arguments which would be presented. This could infringe Shaik’s fair trial right. The second main problem was that many of the witnesses in the Shaik case would be potential witnesses in the pending trial against Jacob Zuma and should not be deterred by TV exposure from testifying again. In addition argument in the appeals would make full and repeated reference to Zuma. Although Zuma’s alleged guilt was not at all involved in the Shaik case the risk had to be minimised that the public might think from the content of argument presented in the Shaik appeal that Zuma’s alleged guilt had already in effect been decided.

In the circumstances the Court was not satisfied that what the SABC was asking for would not impair Shaik’s fair trial right in the appeal and the prosecution’s fair hearing right in the Zuma case.

The application was therefore dismissed.