In a judgment handed down on 4 September 2013, in Isparta v Richter and Another, the North Gauteng High Court provided some important guidance about defamatory material published on Facebook.
The plaintiff sued her ex-husband (the second defendant) and his new wife (the first defendant) for defamation on the basis of comments that were posted about her on the first defendant’s Facebook wall.
On 14 May 2013 the Constitutional Court heard an appeal against a judgment handed down by the North Gauteng High Court. The High Court had rejected various media houses’ request to be granted access to an asylum application at the Refugee Appeal Board by Czech fugitive, Radovan Krejcir.
The High Court application was launched after reporters from the Mail & Guardian, Independent Newspapers and Media24 were denied access by the Refugee Appeal Board to its hearing of Krejcir’s appeal against the refusal of his application for asylum in South Africa.
What do President Jacob Zuma and Oscar Pistorius have in common?
In both their cases, the courts commented on the potentially harmful impact of publicity about the case on the administration of justice.
When judge Willem van der Merwe acquitted Zuma on a charge of rape in 2006, he said: “I have no problem with fair comment and the media’s duty to keep the public informed of important matters, especially the case we are dealing with at present. …What, however, is disconcerting, is the fact that some pressure groups, organisations and individuals found the accused guilty and others found him not guilty in their comments on the case, without knowing what the evidence is and long before all the evidence was presented.”
I wrote this article on the Protection of State Information Bill, more commonly known as the Secrecy Bill, for the Financial Mail.
The Protection of State Information Bill, also known as the “secrecy bill”, awaits President Jacob Zuma’s signature before it becomes law. It has followed a tortuous parliamentary route over the past five years, and the various substantive changes that have been made bear testimony to the power of participatory democracy.
I wrote this article on freedom of expression in Swaziland for the Mail & Guardian.
In April 2013, the Swaziland High Court handed down a decision with grave implications for freedom of expression. The Nation magazine, an independent publisher, and its editor Bheki Makhubu were found guilty of the crime of contempt of court, fined 400 000 emalangeni (about ZAR 400 000), and ordered to pay half of the fine within three days of the decision or be imprisoned for two years.
Aside from an immediate prison sentence, it is difficult to contemplate a sanction more chilling to freedom of expression. It is important to understand whether the high court was justified in imposing this extremely harsh penalty.