Helen Suzman Foundation v South African Broadcasting Corporation Soc Ltd and Others (52160/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 606 (20 July 2016)
The court found that the SABC's censorship decision, as defined in the founding affidavit, prima facie infringes the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and access to information. The respondents' policy and instructions restricting coverage of protests and demonstrations are inconsistent with the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] ZAGPPHC 606
- Parties
- Applicant: Helen Suzman Foundation; Respondent: South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd; Respondent: Hlaudi Motsoeneng; Respondent: Minister of Communications; Respondent: Prof Mbulaheni Obert Maguvhe; Respondent: Leah Thabisile Khumalo; Respondent: Vusimuzi Goodman Moses Mavuso; Respondent: Krish Naidoo; Respondent: Dr. Ndivhoniswani Aaron Tshidzumba; Respondent: Nomvuyo Memory Mhlakaza; Respondent: James Rogers Aguma; Respondent: Frans Lekoapa Matlala
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 52160/16
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Review
- Outcome
- Interim interdict granted pending final determination of the review proceedings.
- Judges
- Murphy
- Legal Topics
- Freedom of Expression, Broadcasting Regulation, Interim Interdict, Editorial Discretion, Constitutional Rights
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Helen Suzman Foundation
Applicant
South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd
Respondent
Hlaudi Motsoeneng
Respondent
Minister of Communications
Respondent
Prof Mbulaheni Obert Maguvhe
Respondent
Leah Thabisile Khumalo
Respondent
Vusimuzi Goodman Moses Mavuso
Respondent
Krish Naidoo
Respondent
Dr. Ndivhoniswani Aaron Tshidzumba
Respondent
Nomvuyo Memory Mhlakaza
Respondent
James Rogers Aguma
Respondent
Frans Lekoapa Matlala
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the SABC's censorship decision infringes constitutional rights to freedom of expression and access to information.
- 2 Whether the respondents may lawfully implement policies restricting broadcast coverage of protests and demonstrations.
- 3 Whether interim relief is warranted pending final determination of the review proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the SABC's censorship decision, as defined in the founding affidavit, prima facie infringes the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and access to information. The respondents' policy and instructions restricting coverage of protests and demonstrations are inconsistent with the Constitution, the Broadcasting Act, and the applicable Code of Conduct. The applicant established a prima facie right and a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm, justifying urgent interim relief. The balance of convenience favours the applicant, as the public interest in open and accurate reporting outweighs the respondents' editorial discretion in this context. Accordingly,...
Court Disposition
Interim interdict granted pending final determination of the review proceedings.
Orders
- Each respondent is interdicted from giving effect to, implementing or enforcing the censorship decision as defined in the founding affidavit.
- The first and second respondents must exercise editorial discretion in accordance with the Constitution, the Broadcasting Act, and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission Code of Conduct.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
43 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case No: 52160/16
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MURPHY
PRETORIA, 20 JULY 2016
HELEN SUZMAN FOUNDATION Applicant
And
THE SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING
CORPORATION SOC LTD 1st Respondent
HLAUDI MOTSOENENG: CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING
CORPORATION SOC LIMITED 2nd Respondent
MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS 3rd Respondent
PROF MBULAHENI OBERT MAGUVHE 4th Respondent
LEAH THABISILE KHUMALO 5th Respondent
VUSIMUZI GOODMAN MOSES MAVUSO 6th Respondent
KRISH NAIDOO 7th Respondent
DR. NDIVHONISWANI AARON TSHIDZUMBA 8th Respondent
NOMVUYO MEMORY MHLAKAZA 9th Respondent
JAMES ROGERS AGUMA 10th Respondent
FRANS LEKOAPA MATLALA 11th Respondent
ORDER
PART A
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. Pending the final determination of Part B of this application, including any appeal of the review proceedings under Part B:
1.1. each of the respondents is interdicted from giving effect to, implementing or enforcing the censorship decision, as defined in paragraph 9 of the founding affidavit of Francis Antonie (“the founding affidavit”);
1.2. the first and second respondents are required to exercise their editorial discretion in accordance with the Constitution, the Broadcasting Act, 1999, and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa Free- To-Air Code of Conduct for Broadcasting Service Licensees, 2009, and in accordance with the following order:
1.2.1. the first, second and fourth to eleventh respondents are interdicted from adopting or giving effect to any decision, policy, guidelines or instruction which would require the events in 1.2.1.1 to 1.2.1.9 below not to be broadcast, reported upon, covered, publicised, disseminated to the public, or afforded media coverage (“the relevant decisions”). For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any policy, guideline or instruction which would result in partial coverage without visuals, or preclude coverage, by the first respondent of the following:
1.2.1.1. any peaceful protest or demonstration;
1.2.1.2. any violent protest or demonstration;
1.2.1.3. any peaceful or violent protest or demonstration against service delivery;
1.2.1.4. any peaceful or violent protest or demonstration against the Policy (as defined in paragraph·92 of the founding affidavit);
1.2.1.5. any peaceful or violent protest or ·demonstration against government or a public body, at any level (local, municipal, provincial, regional or national);
1.2.1.6. any protest, demonstration, commentary or news piece which portrays, or has the potential to portray:
1.2.1.6.1. government (at any level); or
1.2.1.6.2. any political leader or government employee or officer, including a member of the National Executive
in a negative light;
1.2.1.7. any politically motivated protest or demonstration (whether violent or peaceful);
1.2.1.8. any events or actions (including violent or peaceful protest or demonstration) that reflects, or may reflect, any political party or politician in a negative light; and/or
1.2.1.9. any events or actions (including violent or peaceful protest or demonstration) that reflect, or may reflect, negatively upon the President of the Republic of South Africa;
2. the first respondent is liable to pay the cost of the application for Part A relief on the scale as between attorney and client, including the costs of two counsel.
_________________
pp REGISTRAR