Ruling in censorship case worth appealing

The Cape High Court ruling against the media in the so-called parliamentary censorship and signal jamming case serves to emphasise the importance the constitution places on the integrity of our democratic institutions.

The court, sitting as a full bench, ruled two to one that Parliament "has a right to protect its dignity and to ensure that its legitimate business is broadcast", so training the camera on the Speaker during the disruption that occurred during President Jacob Zuma’s state of the nation address earlier in the year did not amount to a violation of the public’s constitutional right of access to Parliament. The majority ruling also gave the thumbs-up to the blocking of cellular signals in the parliamentary precinct in the interests of security.

This is clearly bad news for the media’s ability to do their job, and the public’s right to information, especially since of all our democratic institutions, Parliament is the one where transparency is most critical. Just as justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, so the credibility of the legislature depends on the public’s unfettered access to its proceedings in all but the most exceptional cases.

One of Parliament’s two main functions is to hold the executive to account. As disturbing and undignified as the disruption of parliamentary proceedings by opposition MPs may have been, it was in part a protest against the Speaker’s failure to ensure that Mr Zuma answered MPs’ questions. It is therefore problematic that the court ruling in effect assumes the Speaker to be impartial.

Such a system may serve the public interest when the bona fides of the individuals in those posts are beyond question, but sadly that is not true in the case of Parliament, where the Speaker is also the chairwoman of the governing party and has revealed her bias towards the Presidency in particular on numerous occasions.

The higher courts have ruled consistently that those representing the state and its institutions must act reasonably and rationally in carrying out their duties.

That would imply that the Speaker’s decisions on matters such as what the public should be allowed to see, are at least subject to judicial review.

This article was first published in Business Day, 2 June 2015.