Judgment reserved in parly live feed case

File photo: Kopano Tlape

File photo: Kopano Tlape

Published Apr 20, 2015

Share

Cape Town - Judgment was on Monday reserved in the Western Cape high court case in which media houses are seeking an order declaring a clause in Parliament’s broadcasting policy unconstitutional.

Steven Budlender arguing for the applicants – Primedia, the SA National Editors’ Forum (SANEF), Media24, the Right to Know Campaign, and the Open Democracy Advice Centre – argued that the clause, which allows the the broadcast feed to be interrupted if there is grave disorder during a National Assembly sitting, violated the Constitution.

Budlender said the clause was in contravention of section 59 of the Constitution which guaranteed media and public access to Parliament, and that the business of the legislature be conducted in an open manner.

“They (the public) have a right to receive footage of what goes on in Parliament,” Budlender said.

While section 59, also made provision for Parliament to take reasonable steps to regulate access, Budlender said this should only be done if it is reasonable to do so.

“Parliament should take measures to protect its dignity, but it shouldn’t do so in a way that undermines the rights to an open Parliament or undermines the right to freedom of expression,” Budlender told the court.

Media houses wanted there to be at least a “wide angle shot” and uninterrupted audio of proceedings should there be unparliamentary conduct on the part of MPs or should the sitting descend into “grave disorder”.

The media houses also sought an order declaring the use of a signal jamming device during the January 12 opening of Parliament to be unlawful.

In turn, Parliament argued it had a right to protect its dignity and regulate the broadcast feed.

Jeremy Gauntlett, for Parliament, said giving the media the power to control what is broadcast could put at risk the authority of the Speaker and the dignity of the institution.

“It is a considerable nerve of SANEF and the other applicants to say they will perform that function,” Gauntlett said.

The buck should stop at Parliament as the legislature had to protect its dignity.

“It is not the Jerry Springer show,” Gauntlett argued.

On the signal jamming issue, Gauntlett conceded: “This was an abhorrent event that happened. It has been explained.”

The court case followed the state-of-the-nation-address (SONA) when journalists were, for a period of time, unable to file stories because a signal jamming device had been installed.

The State Security Agency has since said it was a mistake and that the operator failed to terminate the device at the specified time.

During the SONA, members of the Economic Freedom Fighters were forcibly ejected from the National Assembly (NA).

During the scuffles that followed, the cameras in the NA focused on the presiding officers and not on the violent images in the House.

ANA

Related Topics: