The Economic Freedom Fighters' protests in Parliament and calls for President Jacob Zuma to pay back the money inadvertently led to a case at the Supreme Court of Appeal on Wednesday. PRIMEDIA‚ the SA National Editors Forum‚ NGO Right 2 Know and the Open Democracy Advice Centre approached the Bloemfontein court to ensure that live broadcasts from Parliament are not censored and signal jamming devices not used to block journalists using mobile phones. During the State of Nation Address in February 2015‚ a signal jammer prevented journalists and members of parliament accessing their phones or tweeting what was happening until protests from the public gallery led to the minister of state security turning off the jammer.‘Parliament TV must have age restriction’James Selfe on the circus that is South Africa’s National Assembly Then the EFF disrupted the beginning of Zuma's speech shouting at him to "pay back the money".EFF weapons scare prompts MP searches in ParliamentMPs will from now on be subjected to strict physical body searches and other stringent security checks before they can enter the National Assembly. When security officials dragged the EFF members out of parliament and fights erupted‚ the live feed showed viewers the displeased face of parliamentary speaker Baleka Mbete.Parliament has rules that when there are scenes of "grave disorder" that seriously disrupt parliament‚ it can turn off the live feed showing the disorder. This means no one outside of parliament can see what is happening.But the media and NGOs on Wednesday asked that these parliamentary rules be deemed by the court as "invalid and unconstitutional".They say these rules "violate the principal of an open parliament".The result of deeming them invalid would either allow parliament to make new rules in line with the Constitution or to show everything that happens to the public via its live feed.Acting for parliament‚ Advocate Jeremy Gauntlett SC argued that "responsible broadcasting was key to maintaining the authority and dignity of parliament." He also argued that when the live feed was cut during serious disruptions‚ it didn’t affect the transparency of parliament as viewers were not stopped from seeing law-making or important events. "The behaviour that would be broadcast is not parliamentary behaviour. It is the antithesis of parliamentary behaviour" read the legal papers. But this is "censorship" said advocate Steven Budlender SC‚ acting for the four organisations that want to ensure public can see everything that happens in parliament."It is a stance by parliament that says public don’t want to see for themselves what happens."Budlender argued what happened during the state of nation address was the subject of an "extraordinary vigorous public debate".He told the court people debated about whether the EFF should have been thrown out‚ or whether the EFF or police engaged in violence.But because of the broadcasting policy of parliament‚ members of public who debated the issue could not see for themselves what happened he explained. They have to rely on second hand‚ incomplete assessments made my members of media. This was not good enough he argued.Budlender also asked that the signal jamming that took place be declared unlawful.The Minister of State Security argued that the use of the signal devices was for security and it was left on too long by mistake‚ which is why it interrupted transmission from parliament. He asked‚ via advocate Francois Van Zyl SC‚ that the court decline from ruling on the signal jamming incident. This is because it had been mistake and it would not happen again."There is no reason to believe that such a device will be used by the Agency in a manner that will result in interference with cell phone signals during open sittings of Parliament in the future."But the NGOs and press want a message sent to the Minister of State Security that he doesn’t have unlimited power to use security measures to interfere with the functioning of parliament.This is because parliament is supposed to be separate and hold government to account‚ which it cannot do if government uses security measures to disrupt how parliament works...