Witness in Meyiwa case fails to have media barred from broadcasting her evidence

18 May 2023 - 12:29
subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now
Judge Tshifhiwa Maumela has ruled against a witness who wanted the media blocked from reporting on her evidence on what transpired the day Senzo Meyiwa died. File photo.
Judge Tshifhiwa Maumela has ruled against a witness who wanted the media blocked from reporting on her evidence on what transpired the day Senzo Meyiwa died. File photo.
Image: Thulani Mbele

Judge Tshifhiwa Maumela has ruled that the evidence of the state's fifth witness on what transpired  in the Vosloorus home where Senzo Meyiwa was murdered can be broadcast live in audio form.

There was partial victory for her though as the court ordered that her face not be shown. 

“Live broadcast of the image of the witness will not be permitted. Members of electronic media are permitted to live broadcast the testimony of the witness ...  by means of audio. The prohibition of images of [the] witness ...  while she testifies shall remain in place until the finalisation of this trial,” he said.

The witness who has been described as a “public figure”, and was in the house when Meyiwa was murdered in 2014 was seeking a broadcast ban.

Meyiwa was gunned down in what was described as a botched robbery in the presence of his then-girlfriend Kelly Khumalo, her mother Ntombi, sister Zandi, Zandi’s boyfriend Longwe Twala and Senzo’s friends Mthokozisi Thwala and Tumelo Madlala.

Muzikawukhulelwa Sibiya, Bongani Sandiso Ntanzi, Mthobisi Prince Mncube, Mthokoziseni Maphisa and Sifisokuhle Nkani Ntuli are standing trial for the murder of the footballer. They have been charged with premeditated murder, attempted murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, possession of firearms without a licence and possession of ammunition. All have pleaded not guilty.

The court heard arguments on the application on Wednesday.

State prosecutor George Baloyi had argued that though the next witness is a performing artist, “away from the world of glitz and glamour, she is a normal witness with anxieties”.

Baloyi told the court the witness wants to relate her story of how she saw the incident occur in a less intrusive atmosphere. He argued a witness should be given a choice whether they want to testify in front of cameras.

Baloyi said the witness was in no circumstances prepared to give evidence if the proceedings were broadcast live.

The defence counsels argued that a broadcasting blackout would have a negative impact on both the accused, whose families were following proceedings from the live stream, and the family of the deceased.

The defence lawyers made reference to conditions under which other witnesses gave their testimonies, asking the court to reject the request for “special treatment”. They also pointed out that the witness had already opened herself to public scrutiny by participating on social media and interviews regarding the case.

The witness has participated on social media on this case. In so doing, she placed her face out there which prompted public scrutiny in which she now claims to be harbouring apprehension
Judge Tshifhiwa Maumela

Giving his judgment, Maumela said the court found the witness had not given sufficient reasons to justify an order restricting visuals and audio broadcasts of her evidence.

“The court finds that where the broadcast of visual images of her testimony may bring unintended adverse consequences to bear upon her — there is no evidence proving that an audio broadcast of her evidence will do the same,” he said.

Outlining his judgment, Maumela said the court has to take public interest into account in this case. The court has to harmonise the right of freedom of expression and the open justice principle and the right to a fair trial, he added.

“When all is said and done, the court has to ensure that the interest of justice is taken into account. The rights of witness No 1 as an individual are pitted against the rights of all others involved in this case,” he said.

Maumela noted there are parties who have an interest in this case but cannot be present in the courtroom. “It is for that reason that efforts ought to be done towards imposing lesser rather than greater restrictions”

Maumela said the court does not know what perils the new witness will face should she testify. He pointed out that the witness's voice and most probably her face are already in the public domain due to her participating on social media about the case.

“The witness has participated on social media on this case. In so doing, she placed her face out there which prompted public scrutiny in which she now claims to be harbouring apprehension.”

TimesLIVE

Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.


subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now

Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Speech Bubbles

Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.