Parliament wins broadcast-feeds case

It also ruled that broadcast feeds of National Assembly sittings could be cut off.

The judgment was handed down in Cape Town in a case that had been heard by a full bench of three judges. Two judges ruled against the media houses, while one agreed with their arguments. The court found that while the media had an important role to play, the limitation in Parliament's broadcast policy did not amount to a prohibition.

"Parliament has the right to protect its dignity and to ensure that its legitimate business is broadcast... This does not amount to censorship," the judgment read.

Director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy based in Grahamstown and Johannesburg Steven Friedman said yesterday that the judgment was "problematic for democracy".

"Parliament is owned by the people of SA, therefore (they) have the right to know what is happening in the House... The judgment could create a wall between the people and Parliament," Friedman said.

The South African National Editors Forum (Sanef), Media24, Primedia, Right to Know Campaign and Open Democracy Advice Centre approached the court this year to challenge a clause in Parliament's broadcasting policy that deals with how incidents of "unparliamentary behaviour" are covered.

The case came about after the Economic Freedom Fighters' MPs were violently ejected during the state of the nation address for disrupting proceedings.

As the MPs were being manhandled by Parliament's security detail, cameras in the National Assembly focused on the presiding officers, and ignored the scenes unfolding in the House.

The media rely on Parliament's feed during House sittings.

The applicants' counsel, Steven Budlender, had argued that the clause - which allows Parliament's broadcast feed to be interrupted if there is serious disorder during a sitting - violated the Constitution.

The clause was in contravention of section 59 of the Constitution, which guaranteed the media and public access to Parliament, he said. Parliament's counsel, Jeremy Gauntlett, countered that it had a right to protect its dignity and regulate the broadcast feed.

Giving the media the power to control what was broadcast in Parliament could jeopardise the speaker's authority and the institution's dignity, he said. The media houses had also sought a declaration order that the use of a signal-jamming device was unlawful.

Parliament welcomed the ruling and said: "Parliament remains committed to facilitating public involvement in, and access to, its business."

Sanef chairman Mpumelelo Mkhabela said: "Sanef is still convinced that the public would be better served by seeing all of what their representatives get up to in Parliament. The fact that the bench was split shows there is a possibility another court could arrive at a different conclusion."

Source: Business Day