the subjudice rule
DESCRIPTION
INTRODUCTION Justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done 1.1 INTRODUCTION Freedom of expression and freedom of the media is one of the most fundamental right in all democratic societies in the world. The media is the fourth estate and it provides a check to all forms of exercise of power by informing the public of all matters of public interest and providing a platform to discuss the exercise of power by the state and its institutions. However freedom of expression is not absolute. Freedom of expression has its limitations. One such limitation is the Subjudice rule, which prevents the publication of material that prejudice the trail in pending proceedings. This research shows whether the Subjudice rule is a justifiable limitation to freedom of speech and the media.TRANSCRIPT
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Freedom of expression and freedom of the media is one of the most fundamental right in all
democratic societies in the world. The media is the fourth estate and it provides a check to all
forms of exercise of power by informing the public of all matters of public interest and
providing a platform to discuss the exercise of power by the state and its institutions.
However freedom of expression is not absolute. Freedom of expression has its limitations.
One such limitation is the Subjudice rule, which prevents the publication of material that
prejudice the trail in pending proceedings. This research shows whether the Subjudice rule is
a justifiable limitation to freedom of speech and the media.
The research will give a critical analysis of the Subjudice rule. It shall delve into the origins
of the Subjudice rule, the justification of the rule and the justifiability of the limitations it
imposes on freedom of speech and the freedom of the media. The research shall also look at
the application of the rule on in our legal system by the Judiciary and whether it has been
constant. The writer shall assess the impact of the application of the rule on freedom of
expression, and other rights that can be violated by allowing or disallowing the application of
this rule.
1.2 BACKGROUND OF RESEARCH
Freedom of expression and freedom of the media is a fundamental right in section 61 of the
constitution. It guarantees one’s right to communicate ideas and other information. Our courts
have consistently maintained that freedom of expression is an indispensable condition for a
free and democratic society1. Without the freedom to express, interchange and communicate
new ideas and advance critical opinions about public affairs or the functioning of public
institutions democracy cannot survive. The fact that freedom of expression is indispensable to
democracy is axiomatic and has been articulated so often2.
1 Retrofit (Pvt) Ltd Vs P.T.C and Anor 1995 (2) ZLR2 See cases of Retrofit supra, In re Munhumeso and others 1994 (1) ZLR 49, S v Hartman and Anor 1983 (2) ZLR
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 1
Section 86 of the constitution realise that the constitutional promises such as of a free press,
are not absolute. By application of section 86 of the constitution, freedom of expression must
be exercised reasonably with due regard to the rights and freedoms of others. It can also be
limited by any law of general application. Therefore any law that purports to curtail the full
exercise of a constitutionally protected right might take the form of legislation, or a rule of
the common law, or even a provision of the Constitution itself.
In the case of Charles Kwaramba v The Honourable Mr. Justice Bhunu, it was stated that
the Subjudice rule is a time-honored practice which has crystallised into law. 3In other words
this means that the Subjudice rule has been part of our common law and it was also
incorporated in our statute law. As it shall be shown later that, section 84 (1) (c) and 182 (1)
Criminal law (Codification and reform) Act [Chap 9:23] has integrated the Subjudice rule in
our criminal law.
The law on defeating or obstructing the law of justice and the law of contempt of court shall
be used as a reference to the Subjudice rule. It must be borne in mind that some scholars are
of the view that the crime of defeating or obstructing the course of justice is derived from
contempt of court. The Subjudice rule therefore is part of our criminal law and since it
prohibits commending of publication of certain material it becomes a huge contender against
freedom of speech.
The Subjudice rule seeks to prevent negative pre-trial publicity which can affect the rights of
the accused person such as the right to a fair trial, to protect the independence and dignity of
the judiciary, to protect the rule of law and to prevent the obstruction of justice. The rule has
profound impact on the media and in this digital era there is flagrant breach and manifest
ignorance of the rule which begs the question whether it is still relevant at all.
The Subjudice rule realises that, the integrity of the judicial process is an essential component
of the rule of law. The Subjudice has the capability of eroding the rule of law by
compromising the integrity of the judicial process. The exercise of press freedom has the
potential to cause prejudice to the administration of justice in various ways. It is prejudicial to
prejudge issues that are under judicial consideration, it is prejudicial if trials are conducted
3 SC 46/12
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 2
through the media. It is prejudicial to bring improper pressure to bear on witnesses or judicial
officers. It is also prejudicial to obstruct the course of justice.
1.3 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Though the Subjudice rule has been integrated into the criminal code, it has never been
clearly articulated. The rule makes brief appearances here and then but it has never been
really used to meet the ends of justice. There has been great difficulty in applying this rule.
There are no clear guidelines on specific issues and matters where the rule should apply.
There is so much ignorance of this part of the law and the media and key persons in high
political offices have orchestrated flagrant violation of this rule to the detriment of accused
persons. Accused persons have been treated as people without rights at all and very few
advocate for the rights of accused persons. The Subjudice rule should protect arrested persons
just the same way as the law on defamation protects anyone. Defamation laws cannot do
much to protect accused persons because they don’t qualify in some of the cases but the harm
would have already been done. It is accused persons who are affected by negative pre-trial
publicity which leads to trial by media, negatively influencing the outcome of the trial and
public perception. The fact these effects are not surgically dealt with in our Criminal Law has
exacerbated the problem the law has failed to offer adequate protection to suspects in pending
criminal cases. The dignity of the courts have been impaired. It has become a grey area in our
law.
Ignorance of the Subjudice rule has compromised the independence of the judiciary and the
rule of law. The principle of innocent until proven guilty should be respected. It is also
evident that most of the articles in the media about pending proceedings feature opinions of
high ranking political figures seeking to influence the outcome of a trial and this has seriously
impairs the independence and dignity of the judiciary.
The constitution and the law does not state to what extent can the Subjudice rule be a
limitation to freedom of expression and the freedom of the media. When this rule has been
applied it has been criticised for infringing upon the rights of the media and freedom of
expression. There has been a danger of silencing the public on matters of legitimate national
interests.
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 3
1.4 RESEARCH QESTIONS
1. What is the Subjudice rule and its relevance in Zimbabwean law?
2. What is the impact of Subjudice on the judiciary and the right to a fair trial?
3. How does it limit freedom of expression and whether it is justiciable?
4. What must be done to strike a balance between media freedom or freedom of
expression and the Subjudice rule?
1.5 OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH
The paper shall analyse the impact of the Subjudice rule as a limitation to freedom of
expression and freedom of the media and the extent which such limitations should be
realised. This shall also be explained within the notion that administration of justice is a
public process and it must be open to public scrutiny. An assessment shall also be made on
the impact the rule has or may have on muzzling the press. A comparison shall also be made
with other democratic societies similar to ours.
The research will analyse the fundamental underpinnings of the Subjudice rule and freedom
of expression, the rationale behind the rule and whether the rationale is justified, the
application of the rule in our judicial system and whether it has been constant, the impact the
rule has on freedom of expression, other rights that can be violated by allowing or
disallowing the application of this rule.
The findings show an analytic assessment of the impact publications by the media may have
to the decorum of the courts and dignity of the judicial officers. The effect it has on the
decisions the judiciary make and the proper administration of justice. The research will reflect
on the reaction of the judiciary towards publications show how the judiciary has reacted in
the past and whether is able to withstand the pressure. Various cases shall be used to show
violation and also application of the Subjudice rule.
The discussion will also look into the rules regarding obstruction of justice and contempt of
court and reveal whether these laws are being applied in our law.
The paper will discuss the impact of the Subjudice rule on the fundamental human the right to
a fair and impartial trial.
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 4
The research seeks to prove that the media has a powerful impact on public perception of
guilt and the creation of media personalities. The research seeks to show the impact of these
publications on public opinion and public pressure incited by the media. Impact on the
evidence which will be given by the witnesses to a trial and the conduct of the trial and also
the assessing of the evidence by the presiding officer especially with regards to the burden of
proof. The paper shall analyse the reaction of the media towards such expressions.
The paper seeks to reveal what the law is as it stands, the shortcomings or the law and
possible reforms which may be needed on the issue of the Subjudice rule. Finally conclusions
and recommendations shall be made, based on the discussion which shall be made in the
dissertation.
1.6 RESEARCH METHODS
The dissertation will undertake a qualitative research to respond to the problems outlined.
This includes analysis and evaluation of various legal materials. This study will be based on
library research, since there is little literature in Zimbabwe on the subject much reliance shall
be put on Case law. Relevant textbooks, law reports, legal forums, law review articles and
commentaries, bulletins and statutes. The study will also take into account relevant
international law, foreign judicial precedents, statutes, newspaper articles and more
importantly the internet.
1.7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.7.1 ACTS
1. The Constitution of Zimbabwe
2. Criminal Law (codification and reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]
1.7.2 INTERNATIONAL LAW INSTRUMENTS
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal Declaration)
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
3. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR)
1.7.3 CASES
1. AG v Times Newspaper Ltd 1974 AC 273
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 5
2. AG v News Group Newspaper [1986] Z AER 833
3. Canaan Sodindo Banana v The State 1998 (1) ZLR 309
4. Civil Liberties Organisation and Media Rights Agenda v. Nigeria,
Communication No. 140 of 1994 [ACHPR]
5. Charles Kwaramba v The Honourable Mr Justice Bhunu SC 46/12
6. Dagenous v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation [1995] 25 CRRI
7. De Lange NO v Smuts & Others 1998 3 SA 785 (CC); 1998 7 BCLR 779 (CC)
8. Government of the Republic of South Africa v ‘Sunday Times’ Newspaper 1995
(2) SA 221 (T).
9. In re Baleka 1986 SA 214 (T)
10. In re Chinamasa 2000 (2) ZLR 322 (SC)
11. In re Phelan (1877) Kotze 5 at 9
12. In re Munhumeso and others and Retrofit (Pvt) ltd and another (1995) 2 ZLR
199
13. Midi Television (Pty) Ltd v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] SCA 56 (RSA)
14. Morgan Tsvangirai v The State HH 100/03
15. Nebraska Press assn v. Stuart 427 US 539, 562 (1976)
16. Retrofit (Pvt) Ltd V PTC & Anor 1995 (2) ZLR 199 (SC)
17. Roach v. Garvan [1740] 2 ATK
18. R v Beck and Others, exparte Daily Telegraph p/c and others [1993] Z AER 177
19. R v Davies: Ex Parte Delbert Evans [1945] 2 All ER 167.
20. R v hardy 1904 NLR 359
21. South African National Defence Union v Minister of Defence and Another [1999]
ZACC 7; 1999 (4) SA 469 (CC); 1999 (6) BCLR 615 (CC).
22. S v Harber and Another [1988] 4 All SA 496 (AD)
23. S V Hartmann & Another 1983 (2) ZLR 186 (SC)
24. S v. Makwanyane and Another 1995 (3) SA 391(CC)
25. S v Mamabolo (E-tv, Business Day and the Freedom of Expression Institute
intervening) 2001 (3) SA 409 (CC)
26. S v Manamela (Director-General of Justice Intervening) 2000 (3) SA 1 (CC)
27. S v Morgan Tsvangirai HH 169/2004
28. Smyth v Ushewokunze & Anor 1997 (2) ZLR 544 (Sc)A
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 6
29. S v Van Niekerk 1972 3 SA 711 (A) & 724
30. The Queen in Right of Canada v Beauregard
31. Van Rooyen & Others v S & Others (General Council of the Bar of South
African Intervening) 2002 5 SA 246 (CC); 2002 8 BCLR 810 (CC)
32. Woods and Anor v Minister of Justice and Ors 1994 (2) ZLR 195
1.7.4 TEXT BOOKS
1. Arlidge, Eady and Smith on Contempt 2nd Edition; Sweet and Maxwell 1999,
London.
2. C. R Snyman, Criminal Law 4th Edition Lexis Nexis, Butterwoths, Durban
3. Geoff Feltoe: Guide to Media Law in Zimbabwe Legal Resources Foundation
(LRF) November 01, 2002.
4. K Ritchie and G Ansell, Reporting the Courts – A handbook for South African
journalists (2006) SA
5. Jonathan Burchell and John Milton, Principles of Criminal Law Juta & Co
6. Mike Feintuck: media regulation, public intrest, and the law, Edinburg University
Press, Edinburg, Great Britain.
7. Nkosi Ndlela, Critical Analysis of Media Laws in Zimbabwe, 2003, Konrad
Adenauer Foundation. Germany.
8. Peter Carey: Media Law 2nd Ed, Sweet & Maxwell, 1996. London.
9. Thomas David Jones, Human Rights: Group Defamation, Freedom of Expression
and the Law of Nations, Kluwer Law International 1998 Netherlands.
10. Tom Crone: Law and the Media 3rd Edition, Focal press 1989 Great Britain.
11. Yvonne Burns: Media Law, Butterworths 1990.
1.7.5 ARTICLES
1. Contempt of Court – The Subjudice rule Discussion Paper; Law Reform
Commission of Scotland; http://www.scotland - judiciary.org.uk/
2. Hansard Parliamentary debates, 27,50:5078-9
3. Media and the Law - A handbook for community journalist she Freedom of
Expression Institute Braamfontein, Johannesburg
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 7
4. The Subjudice Rule - Briefing Note by Glenn Penfold, Webber Wentzel Bowens for
the South African National Editors’ Forum.
5. The Doctrine Of Res Subjudice And The Right To Free Speech In The Tanzanian
Parliament: Finding The Balance: John Seka.
6. The Sub Judice Rule - Briefing Note by Glenn Penfold, Webber Wentzel Bowens for
the South African National Editors’ Forum
7. ‘Challenges to the Subjudice rule in South Africa’, Van Rooyen, K., 2014, HTS
Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 70(1)
8. General comments
1.7.6 WEBSITES
1. http://www.achpr.org/press/
2. http://www.bishop-accountability.org
3. http://www.dailynews.co.zw/
4. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/
5. http://www.radiovop.com/
6. http://www.newzimbabwe.com
1.8 CHAPTER SYNOPSIS
This dissertation shall take after the following format;
CHAPTER 1
This chapter shall introduce the topic and give a brief background the Subjudice rule and the
right to freedom of expression and the media. The chapter outlines how the dissertation shall
unfold and the questions which it seeks to answer. It also gives the bibliography and the
chapter synopsis.
CHAPTER 2
This chapter defines the Subjudice rule and what it entails. The chapter also shows the
application of the rule.
CHAPTER 3
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 8
This chapter introduces the second dimension of this research which is freedom of expression
and the media. This chapter shows the importance and role freedom of expression and media
in our society and why it should not be limited unjustifiably.
CHAPTER 4
This chapter analyses whether the Subjudice rule is justifiable in light of the import of the
new constitution on freedom of expression and the media. The chapter also shows values
which are protected by the Subjudice rule.
CHAPTER 5
This chapter gives a comparative analysis by looking at other jurisdictions. The chapter seeks
to show the application of the rule in other jurisdiction and the differences or similarities the
application has with ours. It also seeks to find and copy best practices in other nations.
CHAPTER 6
This chapter gives recommendations which can be used to improve our law and the
conclusion of the dissertation.
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 9
CHAPTER 2
THE SUBJUDICE RULE
“Be ye never so high, the law is above you” – Lord Justice Denning
2.1 Introduction.
The objective of this chapter is to give an overview on what the Subjudice rule is and how it
is a derogation from the right to freedom of expression and the media. In order to give a
critical and informative analysis of the application of the Subjudice rule in Zimbabwe there is
need to articulate great detail what the rule entails. This approach will also help to asses
whether this rule is a justifiable limitation on freedom of speech and the media. To achieve
this objective a sequential approach shall be taken to study the origins and development of the
Subjudice rule. The paper shall also show how the rule has been applied in our legal system
by looking into the relevant legislation and case law which interpreted the relevant sections in
legislation.
2.2 Origins of the Subjudice rule.
The Subjudice rule emerged in English law as a specie of contempt of court called contempt
ex facie curiae, meaning it happens outside the courts. “Subjudice” is a Latin term which can
be loosely translated as “under judgment”. The rule was founded under the jury system in
England and the early formulation of the rule was that any commend upon pending
proceedings violated this rule and is in contempt of court. The tests for Subjudice changed
over the years and because of non-jury trials it was further relaxed. The English courts
changed from criminalising “any comment” to comments which “tends to prejudice” the
outcome of the trial and then it changed to comments which bears a “substantial risk of
prejudice”4.
It becomes apparent that the Subjudice rule is a time-honored practice which has crystallised
into law. This law prohibits the making of inappropriate statements on matters pending before
the courts5. Contempt of court has been defined as that which consist in unlawful and
intentional violating the dignity repute or authority of a judicial body, or interfering in the
4 The Sub Judice Rule - Briefing Note by Glenn Penfold, Webber Wentzel Bowens for the South African National Editors’ Forum 5 Charles Kwaramba v The Honourable Mr Justice Bhunu SC 46/12
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 10
administration of justice in a matter pending before the courts6. The Subjudice rule as a form
of contempt of court deters and penalise the publication in the press or other media of any
information or commentary upon a matter which is under judicial consideration.
2.3 The objective of the Subjudice rule.
According to Peter Carey7 the object of this type of contempt is that trial must occur in the
court room rather than the media. This is because the proper forum in which to resolve legal
disputes is the courts not the media. The acceptability of the Court's administration of justice
and therefore the interests of an orderly society is likely to be harmed if the Court is brought
into contempt or if there is a pre-judging in the community and “trial by media”. In the case
of S v Harber8 trial by newspaper was called a “monster”. Therefor the existence of
contempt of court is founded in the belief that the public interests in the proper and effective
administration of justice by the courts of the land requires that the respect of the public for the
courts and their administration of justice must be maintained9. The media cannot be allowed
to be a quasi-judiciary body it is not its function.
According to S.R Snyman10 if the dignity and authority of a court or judicial officer is
undermined, the public respect for the administration of Justice and thus the whole legal order
suffers. The courts very existence and functioning are after all in the interests of the whole
community. In re Phelan11 it was stated:
“I do not in the slightest degree desire to fetter free and open discussion in the public
prints of the proceedings of this Court. The liberty of the press is a great privilege, and
a great safeguard to the public; but the administration of justice is, in like manner, a
matter of public importance. Consequently the law – the very protector of the liberty of
the press – will not, on the grounds of public policy, allow that liberty – its own creature
– to be abused and employed as an instrument to bring the administration of justice
into contempt.”
It is also important to note that the legal object protected is not merely the dignity or
reputation of the individual officers of the court but the office itself. One must be cognisant of
6 Yvonne Burns, Media Law, Butterworths 1990 7 Media Law 2nd Ed, Sweet & Maxwell, 1996. London 8 S v Harber and Another [1988] 4 All SA 496 (AD)9 Jonathan Burchell and John Milton, Principles of Criminal Law Juta & Co10 C. R Snyman, Criminal Law 4th Edition Lexis Nexis, Butterwoths, Durban11 In re Phelan (1877) Kotze 5 at 9
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 11
the fact that it is the administration of justice which is of paramount importance, and the
Subjudice rule is aimed at protecting the administration of judges and not to vindicate
individuals.
In the case of AG v Times Newspaper Ltd12 Lord Diplock explained the rationale for
protecting the integrity and credibility of our courts in the following passage:
“… in any civilised society it is a function of government to maintain courts of law to
which its citizens can have access for the impartial decision of disputes as to their
legal rights and obligations towards one another individually and towards the state as
representing society as a whole. The provision of such a system for the administration
of justice by courts of law and the maintenance of public confidence in it, are
essential if citizens are to live together in peaceful association with one another.”
The object of the Subjudice rule relates to the effective administration of justice and
upholding the dignity and authority of the courts. Since an effective administration of justice
is important in order to ensure peace, stability, and continuance of good order in the state.
However it is designed to prevent or punish violations of the dignity or authority of the courts
and not mere criticism of the administration of justice in the courts. The courts of Law must
be able to come to a decision without improper external influences.
The Subjudice rule realises that, the integrity of the judicial process is an essential component
of the rule of law. Rule of law demands that the judiciary must be separate and no person or
state should try to influence the decisions of the judiciary. The judiciary has to maintain its
independence and it must be free to decide on those matters before it, undisturbed and
unfettered by any outside influence13. The Subjudice rule maintain the rule of law by
preventing the integrity of the judicial process form being compromised.
The Subjudice rule protects the right to a fair trial. According to C.R Snyman the whole
concept of a fair trial presupposes a trial in which the court decides on the issues before it on
the basis of the evidence placed before it and not on the basis of statements or opinions in the
media. Pre emptying the decisions of the court is a clear violation of this rule.
12 1974 AC 27313 Tom Crone; Law and the Media 3rd Edition, (An everyday guide for professionals) Focal Press Great Britain 1989
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 12
2.4 The Subjudice rule in Zimbabwean law
Section 184 (1) (c) of the Criminal law (Codification and reform) Act [Chap 9:23] It states
that,
184 (1) (c) any person who makes any statement, whether written or oral, in
connection with any case which is pending before a court, intending the statement to
prejudice the trial of the case, or realising that there is a real risk or possibility that
the trial of the case may be prejudiced by the statement; shall be guilty of defeating or
obstructing the course of justice.
Therefore, this section clearly makes the definition of the Subjudice rule apply as a form of
defeating or obstructing the course of justice. Subjudice has always been a form of contempt
of court and 182 (1) states that,
182 (1) Any person who, by any act or omission, impairs the dignity, reputation or
authority of a court
(a) intending to do so: or
(b) realising there is a real risk or possibility that his or her act or omission may have
such an effect; shall be guilty of contempt of court and liable to a fine not
exceeding level six or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or both.
Contempt of court and the crime of defeating or obstructing the course of justice tent to
overlap. This means that acts which fall beyond the ambit of contempt of court could well fall
into the ambit of defeating or obstructing the course of justice. That’s why section encompass
the Subjudice rule as a form of defeating or obstructing the course of justice.
2.5 Application of the Subjudice Rule in Zimbabwean Courts.
The locus classicus for the application of the Subjudice rule is the case of S v Hartman14. In
this case it was held that the proper test to be applied in deciding whether or not a publication
was a contempt of court was that there had to be a real risk of interference with the due
administration of justice. The court went on further to explain that the statement had to be
examined objectively to determine whether there could be said to be a real risk that it was
likely to prejudice the fair trial of the action discussed in it. In this case the court showed that
it was pro freedom of expression. The reasoning of the court was that though it is permissible
to make an inroad into the protected right of freedom of speech in order to maintain the
14 1983 (2) ZLR 186 (SC)
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 13
authority and independence of the courts, that inroad should not be wider or deeper than is
required for the achievement of the declared objective.
The test which can be deduced from S v Hartman15 the law outlined is that the statements
published should pass for the publisher to be guilty of Subjudice. There are two major
elements of the crime of Subjudice. The publication made concerning a matter pending before
the courts should fulfill the following basic elements;
a) There must be a real risk or possibility that the trial of the case may be prejudiced by
the statement.
b) The person making the statement must have the intention to prejudice the trial of the
case.
The first element is an objective analysis of the statements made and an inquiry of the effect
of the statements made on the case at hand. The rationale behind this inquiry is that the courts
seek to protect the fundamental right of freedom of expression and to do that the inroads into
the right of freedom of speech should not be wider or deeper than is required for the
achievement of the declared objective. This test departed from the orignal test which only
inqured whether the statements had a tendency to prejudice or interfere with the
administration of justice. The previous tests was too great an inroad into the right of freedom
of expression and the media. This tests follows the English approach which inquires whether
there was a real risk, as opposed to a remote possibility, that the publication was calculated to
prejudice a fair hearing of the action discussed16.
Regarding the second element of intention it was held in the case of, In re Chinamasa17 that,
offence of contempt of court may be committed ex facie curiae by
“words spoken or published which are intended to interfere with, or are likely to
interfere with, the fair administration of justice. It is committed by the publication,
either in writing or verbally, of words calculated to bring a court, or the
administration of justice through the courts generally, into contempt.”
This passage shows that intention is a key element of the offense. And if it is said that a
publication is calculated to prejudice it shows that the person knew or should have known
15 Supra16 Supra17 2000 (2) ZLR 322 (SC)
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 14
that there will be prejudice and the person regardless of that went out of their own way to
publish the statement.
Another prominent case where there was claim of breach of the Subjudice rule was the case
of Morgan Tsvangirai V The State18 the applicant contented that the headline of The Herald
which read “Tsvangirai denied bail” and a cartoon at page 10 of the same newspaper,
apparently showing, in the third segment of the cartoon, the applicant counting his days as a
prisoner until July, was a gross violation of the Subjudice rule which prohibits comments
upon subjudice proceedings. And also contented further, that this constitutes contempt of
court and was done with malice. It was held that,
“only a remote possibility exists of a judge, imbued with basic impartiality, legal
training and power of objective thought, being consciously or subconsciously
influenced by extraneous matter…at a trial judges are not influenced by what they
may have read in the newspapers”19
The court’s reasoning was that it’s not every comment or statement which can be said to have
the potential to sway a judge. Therefore the test for Subjudice should be high, the court must
not take it lightly. This forms the basis of the strict objective test which requires a real risk of
prejudice.
This chapter has articulated the Subjudice rule and its application in Zimbabwe. It is clear that
the Zimbabwean approach to Subjudice has always been two pronged, an objective and a
subjective test. Statements made on pending cases in the courts must have a real risk of
prejudicing the course of the trial. Without a real risk there can be no claim of Subjudice. The
person who is alleged to have breached the Subjudice rule must also have intended or realised
that there is a real risk or possibility that the trial will be prejudiced. The judiciary has also
maintained that they are impervious of any extraneous influences whatsoever.
CHAPTER 3
The right to Freedom of Expression and the freedom of the Media
18 HH 100/0319 Morgan Tsvangirai v The State HH 100/03
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 15
“No greater calamity could come upon the people than the privation of free
speech.”Desmosthenes
3.1 Introduction.
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the law on freedom of expression and the media
and analyse the extent and limitations of the freedom. This chapter will be a forensic analysis
of freedom of expression and the freedom of the media as contained in section 61 of the
Constitution of Zimbabwe. The chapter will also look at international law on freedom of
expression and the media. The approach of the court in light of the provisions of the
constitution and international law will also be analysed. This will provide the background to
analyse the Subjudice rule and make a finding on whether it is a justifiable limitation to
freedom of expression and the media.
3.2 The constitutional provisions of freedom of expression and freedom of the media.
Freedom of expression and freedom of the media is a fundamental right in section 61 of the
constitution. According to the relevant subsections to section 61 of the Constitution of
Zimbabwe;
Freedom of expression and freedom of the media
(1)Every person has the right to freedom of expression, which includes—
(a)freedom to seek, receive and communicate ideas and other information; (b)
freedom of artistic expression and scientific research and creativity; and (c) academic
freedom.
(2)Every person is entitled to freedom of the media, which freedom includes
protection of the confidentiality of journalists’ sources of information.
(4) All State-owned media of communication must,
(a) be free to determine independently the editorial content of their broadcasts or
other communications;
(b) be impartial; and
(c) afford fair opportunity for the presentation of divergent views and dissenting
opinions
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 16
Freedom of the media was not expressly provided for in the Lancaster house Constitution. In
Retrofit (PVT) LTD v Posts and Telecommunications Corporation20 it was held that the
constitutional provision did not only mean that persons were free to express themselves but
that they were not hindered in the means of expression. Though this interpretation of freedom
of expression extended it to freedom of the media, there was no clarity on the extent to which
freedom of expression provided protection to the media. Our Constitution now expressly
provides for it. It shows that freedom of expression as an indispensable condition for a free
and democratic society, is inextricably linked with freedom of the media. The constitution
reflects the realisation that our world view is arguably influenced more by the media than our
personal experience. We rely to a large extent on both the broadcast and the printed media as
communicators of politics, culture and of information and as such, the media exercise great
power in our lives21. Therefore as an institution that has such profound influence in our lives,
it has to be given proper recognition in the Bill of rights.
3.3 Relevant International law on freedom of expression and the media.
The Constitution encourages that members of the judiciary should keep themselves
knowledgeable about the developments in international law22. When interpreting the rights in
the constitution of Zimbabwe the court should take into account international law and all
treaties which Zimbabwe is a party to23. The judiciary must also prefer an interpretation of the
law which is consistent with customary international law24 or international treaties25 than the
one which is not.
Freedom of speech and the media as defined in the constitution is in line with Article 19 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that,
“everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Universal
declaration of Rights26
20 1996 (1) SA 84721 Mike Feintuck ; Media regulation, public intrest, and the law-Edinburg University Press, Edinburg, GB22 Section 165 (7) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe23 Section 46(1)(c) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe24 Section 326 (2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe25 Section 327 (6) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe26 Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 17
Of the various international law treaties which were made pursuant to Article 19 of the
UDHR the one which is more relevant to Zimbabwe is ARTICLE 9 of African Charter on
Human and Peoples' Rights which gives every person has the right to receive information and
also the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law. Furthermore the
Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa, adopted by the Commission in
2002 to supplement the provisions of Article 9 of the African Charter. Specifically, Principles
I (1) and II of the Declaration on Freedom of Expression respectively state that,
“freedom of expression and information…is a fundamental and inalienable human
right and an indispensable component of democracy” and “any restrictions on
freedom of expression shall be provided by law, serve a legitimate interest and be
necessary in a democratic society.”27
This declaration though not binding states the basic principle of the right to freedom of
expression and the media. From the Constitutional provisions stated above it is clear that our
constitution is in line with international law of the right to freedom of expression and the
media. The paper shall then analyse later whether the Subjudice rule is in line with
international norms on freedom of expression and the media.
3.4 The principle of Constitutional Supremacy
Zimbabwe is a constitutional democracy by virtue of section 2 (1) of the Constitution, which
states that, “this Constitution is the supreme law of Zimbabwe and any law, practice, custom
or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency .” This means that if
the Subjudice rule is inconsistent with the constitution it is not valid to the extent of its
inconsistency and this may mean that it can also be wholly invalid if it is wholly inconsistent.
Therefore there is also need to determine the validity of this rule in our law.
Furthermore section 2 (2) states that the obligations imposed by this Constitution are binding
on every person, natural or juristic, including the State and all executive, legislative and
judicial institutions and agencies of government at every level, and must be fulfilled by them.
This shows that the inclusion of rights and freedoms in the bill of rights is fundamentally
increases their value and impact upon the law and society. Elevating freedom of expression as
a human right it means that every person, by the virtue of being a human has, as of right the
power to demand from society the freedom to express his or her right as contained in the
27 http://www.achpr.org/press/2015/05/d257/
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 18
constitution without any impediment whatsoever. A human right is not acquired by grace,
favor nor is it earned but it is an inalienable guarantee or constitutional promise binding upon
society.
Furthermore it is a trite rule of statutory interpretation that when interpreting the rights
contained in the constitution one must give them a wider meaning than a restrictive one. A
liberal approach that leans more to protect the fundamental human rights is encouraged. It
was held in SMYTH v USHEWOKUNZE & ANOR28
“in arriving at the proper meaning of a constitutional provision guaranteeing a right,
the court should endeavour to expand the reach of the right rather than attenuate its
meaning and content. What is to be accorded is a generous and purposive
interpretation with an eye to the spirit as well as the letter of the provision, one that
takes full account of changing conditions, social norms and values. The aim must be
to move away from formalism and make human rights a practical reality.”
3.5 The importance of Freedom of Speech and the Media.
Freedom to express, interchange and communicate new ideas and advance critical opinions
about public affairs or the functioning of public institutions, are key to the survival of
democracy29. Furthermore, it was held in the case of that,
“Freedom of expression, especially when gauged in conjunction with its
accompanying fundamental freedoms, is of the utmost importance in the kind of open
and democratic society the Constitution has set as our aspirational norm. Having
regard to our recent past of thought control, censorship and enforced conformity to
governmental theories, freedom of expression — the free and open exchange of ideas
— is no less important than it is in the United States of America. It could actually be
contended with much force that the public interest in the open market-place of ideas is
all the more important to us in this country because our democracy is not yet firmly
established and must feel its way. Therefore we should be particularly astute to
outlaw any form of thought control, however respectably dressed.”
28 1997 (2) ZLR 544 (SC)A29 In re Chinamasa 2000 (2) ZLR 322 (SC) see also In re Munhumeso and Ors 1994 (1) ZLR 49 and others and Retrofit (pvt) ltd and another (1995) 2 ZLR 199
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 19
This quote shows that the south African constitutional court promoted free expression as long
as it is respectively dressed. This should also apply to comments upon pending proceedings
in court. If these comments are respectably worded, they should not be censored.
In In Re Mahumeso and others30 one of the broad major purposes is that it helps in
individual fulfillment. This is because speech is an expression of self, whether effected by
face-to-face exchange, or over the telephone, by writing, by pictures, or by any other mode.
The desire to communicate, to express feelings and thoughts and to contribute to discussion
and debate, is an essential attribute of human nature. To unreasonably prevent a person from
expressing a view, belief or emotion is to deny his or her basic dignity, freedom and
individual autonomy as a human being.
Furthermore, freedom of speech provides a mechanism to establish a balance between
stability and social change. Freedom of expression advances social stability while restraint
impedes rational discussion and reduces society's ability to adjust to changing circumstances.
The state is the guarantor of the principle of pluralism, which encourages diversity of views
and positions rather than a single approach.
This is a recognition of the important role that the media play in furthering the interest of
freedom of expression. As O‟Regan J stated in Khumalo v Holomisa at paras 22-4:
“The print, broadcast and electronic media have a particular role in the protection of
freedom of expression in our society. Every citizen has the right to freedom of the
press and the media and the right to receive information and ideas. The media are key
agents in ensuring that these aspects of the right to freedom of information are
respected. The ability of each citizen to be a responsible and effective member of our
society depends upon the manner in which the media carry out their constitutional
mandate.”
In this case it is quite clear that the media has constitutional mandate in furthering freedom of
expression in the public interest.
Freedom of speech assists in the discovery of the truth, the truth may emerge out of the
competition of ideas. Free speech strengthens the capacity of an individual to participate in
30 In re Munhumeso and Ors 1994 (1) ZLR 49
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 20
decision making. The halls of justice stand for the truth and frown upon lies so they must
have a bigger interest in enforcing free speech and expression.
The unfettered propagation of ideas and opinions enables members of the society to make
informed judgments on matters of national or private interests. As it was articulated in Woods
and Ors vs Minister of Justice and Others31 freedom of expression should be jealously
guarded.
Freedom of speech has its bearing on the core value and right of human dignity. Everyone
should be afforded the right to be heard. The most insignificant ideas must have an equal right
to be heard as those which are regarded as the most significant. Freedom of expression must
be protected not because the ideas are valid, but because they are relevant. The freedom of
ideas shall not be abridged.32
Furthermore, In the case of South African National Defence Union v Minister of Defence
and Another33
“The rights implicitly recognise the importance, both for a democratic society and for
individuals personally, of the ability to form and express opinions, whether
individually or collectively, even where those views are controversial.”
Therefore freedom of expression does not mean freedom to express one’s consensus with the
judiciary or any other organ of government but it is also means freedom to express ones
disagreement with the system. The courts should never be beyond public scrutiny, the public
has a right to criticize the courts more than the government of the day because judges are not
elected officials.
31 S-145-91
32 Thomas David Jones, Human Rights: Group Defamation, Freedom of Expression and the Law of
Nations, Kluwer Law International 1998 Nethrlands
33 South African National Defence Union v Minister of Defence and Another [1999] ZACC 7; 1999 (4) SA
469 (CC); 1999 (6) BCLR 615 (CC) at para 8.
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 21
3.6 The limitations of freedom of expression and the freedom of the media
Though freedom of expression is a vitally important right that is an indispensable condition
for a free and democratic society, it is not an absolute right34. The right has its limitations, for
with great power comes great responsibility. When exercising freedom of expression the form
of exercise must not infringe upon the right of others. Section 61 (5) of the constitution bears
such limitations which are;
61 (5) Freedom of expression and freedom of the media exclude
(a) incitement to violence;
(b) advocacy of hatred or hate speech;
(c) malicious injury to a person’s reputation or dignity; or
(d) malicious or unwarranted breach of a person’s right to privacy.35
These exclusions are clear as they are prescribed by the Constitution. Section 86 (2) of the
constitution prescribe that the fundamental rights and freedoms such as freedom of expression
and the media may be limited only in terms of a law of general application. But however in
order to protect constitutional rights the section further stated that, when limiting freedom of
expression the limitations imposed must be fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable in a
democratic society based on openness, justice, human dignity, equality and freedom36. Such a
safeguard is important because to limit freedom of the media does not only affect the media
but it is limiting the rights of all citizens.
Law of general application that purports to curtail the full exercise of a constitutionally
protected right might take the form of legislation, or a rule of the common law, or even a
provision of the Constitution itself. In each case the extent to which the intrusion that it
purports to make upon a protected right is constitutionally valid is to be evaluated against the
standard that is set by the provisions of section 86 because there are no other grounds upon
which it is permissible to limit protected rights.
3.7 The international standard on limitations to Freedom of expression.
34 Retrofit (Pvt) Ltd v PTC & ANOR 1995 (2) ZLR 199 (SC)
35 Section 61 (5) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe
36 Constitution of Zimbabwe section 85 (2)
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 22
Zimbabwe in not a party to the International Convenent on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) but the treaty articulates the basic norm on International Human rights law
regarding freedom of expression and the media. Article 19(3) of the ICCPR states that, the
exercise of freedom of expression and the media carries with it special duties and
responsibilities. It may be subjected to certain restrictions, but these must be provided by law
and necessary for respect of the rights and reputations of others; for the protection of national
security or of public order, or public health or morals. The European Convention on Human
Rights in article 10(2) goes even further to explicitly mention the maintenance of the
authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
3.8 Subjudice rule as a limitation to freedom of expression and freedom of the media.
There are various limitations to the right of freedom of expression and freedom of the media
but the focus of this research is to deal with one limitation which is the Subjudice rule. It is
not only a time honoured practise of common law but it has crystallised into law. It prohibits
certain comments from being made, which may prejudice the trial of a pending case.
Although the Subjudice rule is permissible limitation to the right of freedom of expression by
virtue of it being a rule of common law and statute law, there is still one consideration left
which is the enquiry of whether it is a justifiable limitation to freedom of speech in line with
the new constitutional dispensation.
3.9 Conclusion
This chapter has shown that freedom of expression and freedom of the media is a
fundamental and inalienable right in our constitution. A vital component of freedom of
expression is free press and a free and vigorous press plays a vital democratic role by
supplying the people with a range of information and reporting the various views and
opinions of the people. A free Press helps to curb abuses of power and to make those in
positions of power more accountable. A free press will ensure a free and fair judiciary since it
will be subject to public scrutiny. However it has its limitations and one such limitation is the
Subjudice rule. The next chapter shall delve into the justifiability of this rule.
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 23
CHAPTER 4
THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SUBJUDICE RULE.“No greater calamity could come upon the people than the privation of free speech.”
Demosthenes
4.1 Introduction
This chapter shall determine whether the Subjudice rule as a limitation of freedom of
expression and freedom of the media, is justifiable in a democratic society imbued with
impartiality, openness, justice human dignity and freedom37. To determine the justifiability
and the relevance of this rule there is need to look at relevant case studies and show a clear
picture of what is actually occurring in societal practice and state policy. The writer shall look
at relevant case studies which show breach of the Subjudice rule and the impacts of non-
adherence to this rule if any. In the analysis the paper shall show the various defences given
for not applying the rule and the position that the rule must be relegated to the annals of
history. A conclusion shall be reached on the issues arising and show a way forward.
4.2. Dydimus Mutasa and Rugare Gumbo v ZANU PF and The President of
Zimbabwe.38
This case involved two Members of parliament for ZANU PF39 that were challenging their
ouster from the party and Government. In a statement broadcasted on national television and
later almost in every newspaper, the president of Zimbabwe R.G. Mugabe, speaking at the
official opening of Africa Chrome Fields’ (ACF’s) smelting plant in Zibagwe, he said that
“the court application that Mutasa and former Zanu PF spokesman Rugare Gumbo had
filed against him and the ruling party was not one for the judges to handle.” 40 The
president added controversially that “he would also question the qualifications of any
judge who would accept to hear the case41.”
Commenting on the statements made by the President, Constitutional law expert Alex
37 See the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 201338 Th Daily News 8 March 2015 1:09pm, http://www.dailynews.co.zw/ se also the Herald 8 March 2014, see also Lawyers Say Mugabe Warning To Judges Intimidatory Prejudicial 08/03/2015, Voice of the people, http://www.radiovop.com/ 39 Zimbabwean African National Union Patriotic Front. The Zimbabwean Ruling Party.40 The Daily News 8 March 2015 1:09PM, http://www.dailynews.co.zw/41 Ibid
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 24
Magaisa42, said Mugabe’s remarks were in bad taste and had the net effect of inducing fear
among judges43. Given the position he held.
“I think it’s unfortunate that the president has had to go down that route. Judges must
not operate in circumstances that induce fear and intimidation... These statements
might be regarded as pre-empting the judicial decision-making process and it also
puts a dent on judicial independence. If Mutasa and Gumbo’s case has no merit, let
the courts make that determination,”44
Professor Lovemore Madhuku45 had this to say on the issue,
“The major problem with Mugabe is that he has limited understanding of the law. He
studied law in prison and he never went to a law school. So his understanding of law
is limited... There is no matter or dispute that cannot be brought to court. Under the
constitution there is no matter that can be said to be non-judiciable. Mugabe is
ignorant of this fact...What his lawyers should do when they go to court is to raise the
issue that Mugabe’s remarks, as one of the respondents, were inappropriate as the
matter is sub judice, and therefore his defence in court should be dismissed on that
basis...Unfortunately, there are no remedies to the matter because a president cannot
be arrested. But the Chief Justice can issue a statement like what Chief Justice Enoch
Dumbutshena did in 1989 calling upon the executive to stop interfering with the
judiciary”46
Dewa Mavhinga47, said Mugabe was undermining the independence of the judiciary.
“As a party to the court case in question, President Mugabe should not be making
any comments about the chances of Mutasa’s case succeeding... That is for the court
and the court alone to decide. As head of state representing the executive arm of
government, Mugabe’s statements undermine the independence of the judiciary and
the constitutional principle of separation of powers, President Mugabe should respect
the constitution which requires that the executive cannot infringe on the independence
42Constitutional Lawyer quoted in Lawyers Say Mugabe Warning To Judges Intimidatory,Prejudicial 08/03/2015 18:24:00,Voice of the People, http://www.radiovop.com/43Ibid44 Ibid45 Professor at the University of Zimbabwe and Constitutional Law expert. Quoted ibid note 37 46Ibid47Human Rights Watch Southern Africa senior researcher quoted in The Daily News 8 March 2015 1:09PM,
http://www.dailynews.co.zw/
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 25
of the judiciary and legislature and vice-versa. Such unwarranted and pre-emptive
criticism of the judiciary amounts to intimidation,”48
In response to the statements of the President cited above, The Law Society of Zimbabwe
through its President also issued a press statement quoted above on page 20. According to
The Herald,49 below are the statements read on his behalf by the Chief Registrar of Superior
Courts Mr Munamato Mutevedzi at a Press conference on 10 March 2015;
“The Chief Justice calls upon all to refrain from publicly commenting on matters
under consideration by the courts in violation of the sub-judice rule,…Although the
law allowed reports on court cases of public interest, such reports or comments
should not seek to interfere with the administration of justice. The Chief Justice also
said...Notwithstanding the comments and reports on pending matters, the Chief
Justice reassures all that matters before the courts are and will be determined in
accordance with nothing other than the law,…The Chief Justice notes with concern
the proliferation in the public media of inappropriate comments on matters pending
before the courts, contrary to the time honoured and internationally accepted practice
of refraining from publicly commenting on matters that are sub-judice,…However,
such reports and comments must not seek to, or be perceived as seeking to prejudice,
influence or interfere with the due administration of justice or fair trials of the matters
reported on.”50
Furthermore in a press statement the President of the Law Society of Zimbabwe had this to say concerning on the issue of the executive commenting on pending proceedings before the courts; LAW SOCIETY OF ZIMBABWE [LSZ] PRESS STATEMENT ON COMMENTS MADE ON MATTERS BEFORE THE COURTS The LSZ is concerned about the recent comments by members of the Executive arm of the
state regarding matters pending before the courts. The public has been at the mercy of
conflicting and completely polarised views regarding the propriety or otherwise of a
statement that has been attributed to His Excellency, the President of the Republic of
Zimbabwe Cde. R. G. Mugabe.
48The Daily News 8 March 2015 1:09PM, http://www.dailynews.co.zw/. See also Mutasa can’t fight his case before the same people who expelled him. https://www.newsday.co.zw/2015/03/12/49The Herald March 11 2015, Chidyausiku warns media. . .dissuades public comments on matters before the courts. 50 The Herald March 11 2015, Chidyausiku warns media. . .dissuades public comments on matters before the
courts.
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 26
The Chief Justice has rightly stepped in to bring sobriety to the whole matter. The doctrine of
separation of power is part of our law and this is enshrined in our Constitution. It was
accordingly necessary that respect to this doctrine be restored….
The dark cloud however hovers over the question of the rule of law. How confident can we be
that decisions of the courts will be respected? The Executive owes the nation an assurance
that the decisions of the courts will be respected even if they go against the Executive, the
ruling political party or other powerful individuals. Recent comments do not inspire that
confidence in the litigating public especially those who sue the state…
We remain committed to justice and the Rule of law.
LSZ – PRESIDENT51
The above statement contain some of the remarks made by the President of the Law Society
of Zimbabwe pertaining the comments made by the executive and published in most of the
media sources. This shows how the executive can use the media to try and influence the
course or even prevent the springs of justice from flowing. The rule of law dictates that the
judiciary must be independent from the executive. The Subjudice rule seeks to uphold the
rule of law.
Though the various commentators show that there was breach of the Subjudice rule the court
never determined any issue regarding the Subjudice rule. From the quote by Lovemore
Madhuku52 he made it clear that there was no remedy to the matter because the president
cannot be arrested. However as he had suggested the Chief Justice, came out and scolded all
those who were trying to influence the decisions of the courts. In the statement made by the
Chief Justice quoted above, he made it clear that the judiciary is independent and will not be
pressurised by any external influence. Based on this it can be said that one can say that what
the country needs is an independent judiciary not an unenforceable Subjudice rule.
In comments made by the various commentators in the legal arena various arguments have
been raised justifying the Subjudice rule. The following paragraphs shall look at these
arguments and in the end show whether they justify the Subjudice rule
4.3 The protection of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary
51 Press statement by the Law Society of Zimbabwe President on comments made on matters pending before the courts; ZIM LEGAL SOCIAL FORUM(Z.L.S.F) https://www.facebook.com/groups/245991552106876/
52 Ibid note 44
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 27
The basic principle underlining the rule of law is that one can never be so high as to be above
the law.53 The law include the Subjudice rule on one hand and the guarantees of freedom of
expression on the other. The laws of the land especially the supreme law of the land, the
constitution, binds every person natural or juristic, including the state, executive, legislative,
judicial institutions and agencies of government54. “Any practice, custom or conduct
inconsistent with the constitution is invalid to the extent of its inconsistency.”55 The various
rights and guarantees in the constitution must be self-evident in society for there to be rule of
law.56 The violation of any rule if that rule is proved constitutional and the constitution does
not expressly oust it, is a violation of the rule of Law.
According to Tom Crone57 the essence of the Subjudice rule is that, the courts must court
must be free to decide on those matters before it unhindered and unfettered by any external
influences. This is also the essence of the principle of the independence of the judiciary.
However as it was shown before, protecting the independence of the judiciary through a
criminal offence which is difficult to enforce will never reach the required end.
The constitution gives the rule of law and also separation of powers as independent
principles. These principles are better protected independently and enforced independently
rather than through another principle in the form of the Subjudice rule. That will be trying to
export new wine in old wine skins. Section 164 (2) of the Constitution58 states that; The
independence, impartiality and effectiveness of the courts are central to the rule of law and
democratic governance and therefore neither the State nor any institution or agency of
government at any level, and no other person, may interfere with the functioning of the
courts; The state, through legislative and other measures, must assist and protect the courts to
ensure their independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness and to ensure
that they comply with the principles set out in section 165.59
53Per Lord Denning, Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers and Others [1977] CA54The Constitution of Zimbabwe, Amendment no. 20 section 2 and 355Ibid56Ibid 57 Tom Crone, Law and the Media 3rd Edition (An Everyday Guide To Professionals) 1989 Great Britain58 The Constitution of Zimbabwe, Amendment no. 20
59The Constitution of Zimbabwe section 164 (2)
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 28
The independence of the judiciary has been defined by Chief Justice Dickson, former Chief
Justice of Canada as;
“The complete liberty of individual judges to hear and decide the cases that comes
before them. For this to be evident no outsider; be it government, pressure groups,
individuals or even another judge should interfere in fact, or attempt to interfere, with
the way in which a judge conducts his or her case and makes his or her decision.."60
A judge should value independence above gold, not for his or her own benefit, but because it
is of the essence of the rule of law.61 Therefore the integrity of the judicial process is an
essential component of the rule of law. If the rule of law is itself eroded through
compromising the integrity of the judicial process then all constitutional rights and freedoms
are also compromised.
The Indian position according to Mr. Justice G.N. Ray62 is that,
“The media is expected and obligated to work within the framework of Constitution
and other relevant statutes and guidelines framed by the Press Council of India, the
statutory regulatory body for the print media in the country, and similar other bodies
by way of minimum standards of ethics to be observed and followed by media so that
by observing the same, media in turn enjoys higher standards of protection in the
matter of freedom of expression. It goes without saying that for this, an independent
and fair judiciary is a sine qua non.”63
This statement shows that the Indian press is required to follow certain ethical standards in
reporting. The Subjudice rule can be an ethical standard a principle that works outside
criminal law but instilled through ethical reporting which does not seek to influence the trial
or prejudice the accused.
60 De Lange NO v Smuts & Others 1998 3 SA 785 (CC); 1998 7 BCLR 779 (CC) para 70; see also Van Rooyen & Others v S & Others (General Council of the Bar of South African Intervening) 2002 5 SA 246 (CC); 2002 8 BCLR 810 (CC) para 19, citing The Queen in Right of Canada v Beauregard (1986) 30 DLR (4th) 481 (SCC) 49161Lord Chief Justice Phillips, 2007. The rule of Law is also part of the Founding values of our Constitution according to section 3 (1) (b)62 Law Lecture by Mr. Justice G.N. Ray, Chairman, Press Council of India on “Reasonableness of restrictions
on reporting on matters sub judiced” on August 31, 2008 at Bhubaneswar organised by Gora Chand Pattnaik Memorial Trust http://presscouncil.nic.in/OldWebsite/speechpdf/Bhubaneswar%20Law%20Lecture.pdf
63Law Lecture by Mr. Justice G.N. Ray, Chairman, Press Council of India on “Reasonableness of restrictions on reporting on matters sub judiced” on August 31, 2008 at Bhubaneswar organised by Gora Chand Pattnaik Memorial Trust http://presscouncil.nic.in/OldWebsite/speechpdf/Bhubaneswar%20Law%20Lecture.pdf
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 29
Furthermore one may argue that the judiciary must earn their respect just like everyone else.
This respect must not be imposed upon the people and society should have the same right to
criticise judicial mechanisms as they have to criticise government machinery. That is to say
all public officials in the executive the legislature and the judiciary must be subject to public
scrutiny and criticism.
Freedom of expression and the media and independence of the judiciary are important
principles in a free and fair democratic society. According to Mr. Justice G.N. Ray,
“A free press is not to be preferred to an independent judiciary, nor an independent
judiciary to a free press. Neither has primacy over the other, both are indispensable to
a free society. The freedom of the press in itself presupposes an independent judiciary
through which that freedom may, if necessary, be vindicated. And one of the potent
means for assuring judges their independence is a free press”.
Therefore, a balance should be struck between the two. None of these fundamental principles
should be ousted but they all need to be enjoyed for the betterment of our society.
The right to freedom of expression and the media not to be preferred to an independent
judiciary, nor an independent judiciary to a free press either. The integrity of the judiciary is a
right, contrary to argument that the judiciary have to earn their respect, just as constitutional
rights do not have to be earned or deserved but are inherent in every person by the virtue of
being a human being, the respect and integrity of the judiciary inhere by the virtue of it being
the judiciary. It is not also enough that the courts are independent but the public must know
and see that the courts are independent.
4.4 The protection of the right to a fair trial.
The Subjudice rule protects the right to a fair trial therefore violation of the Subjudice rule
undermines the right to a fair trial.64 The predetermination of the matter and influencing the
minds of the judiciary violates this right. An accused person is to be regarded innocent until
proven guilty. When statements have the capacity to limit a person’s defense either by
64Article 10 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees that, Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. See also African Union, the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights.
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 30
deterring witnesses and situations when witnesses alter their statements to fit in with what is
being stated in the media the right to a fair trial as a fundamental human right is abridged.
In cases against the state and the state seeks to influence the outcome of the case by
commenting in the media, the old adages nemo iudex in causa sua that one must not be a
judge unto his cause and audi alteram partem the right to be heard must be applied. Therefore
prejudging especially when you are a party to the proceedings is prejudicial. The true test for
a fair hearing is the impression of a reasonable man who was present at the trial whether from
his observation justice has been done in that case. Fair trial must almost always take
precedence over the right of freedom of speech and the media. What is at stake here is the
liberty and dignity of an individual.
Furthermore, it is the contention of this paper that the Subjudice rule, where it protects the
right of the accused to a fair trial or of the civil litigant to have his rights
determined according to law justifies a temporary curtailment of freedom of expression
and the freedom of the media65. The reason is not because of the circumstances of the
particular accused or civil litigant but that every citizen has an interest in the due
administration of justice. This value is equally fundamental to every democratic society
and, in some instances, more so.
4.5 Prevention of trial by Newspaper.
As the name suggests this is when the media turns itself into a quasi-court. When this occurs
the media ignores the golden principles of innocent until proven guilty and that the threshold
for guilty is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt and goes on to pre-empt and prejudge a
cases pending in the courts before the courts have made any determination.
According to Devinish66
“The most objectionable part, and unfortunate too, of the recently incarnated role of
media is that the coverage of a sensational crime and its adducing of ‘evidence’
begins very early, mostly even before the person who will eventually preside over the
65Media and the Law - A handbook for community journalist she Freedom of Expression Institute Braamfontein, Johannesburg. fxi.org.za/PDFs/Publications/MediaandtheLawHandbook.pdf
66 See Devinish, TRIAL BY MEDIA PREJUDICING THE SUBJUDICE
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 31
trial even takes cognizance of the offence, and secondly that the media is not bound by
the traditional rules of evidence which regulate what material can, and cannot be
used to convict an accused. In fact, the Right to Justice of a victim can often be
compromised in other ways as well, especially in Rape and Sexual Assault cases, in
which often, the past sexual history of a prosecutrix may find its way into newspapers.
Secondly, the media treats seasoned criminal and the ordinary one, sometimes even
the innocents, alike without any reasonable discrimination. They are treated as a
‘television item’ keeping at stake the reputation and image. Even if they are acquitted
by the court on the grounds of proof beyond reasonable doubt, they cannot resurrect
their previous image. Such kind of exposure provided to them is likely to jeopardize all
these cherished rights accompanying liberty.”67
Materials which can cause prejudice when published to a defendant in civil or criminal
proceedings can be accused’s previous convictions and prior conduct before or during trial,
identifying an accused before plea or initial appearance, implications of guilty before verdict,
threats against witnesses, judges and obstructing officials.
4.6 The Cain Nkala murder case.
A case study of the media reports surrounding the case of the murder of Cain Nkala 68 the late
Bulawayo War Veterans leader will show the extent of gross trial by media. In this case the
media conducted its own private investigation and a footage of Nkala’s exhumation was
shown on television while it was announced that Nkala was murdered by MDC terrorist
including the names of the alleged killers, Khethani Sibanda and Sazini Mpofu were among
the accused persons. Furthermore on 13 November 2001 statements were apparently aired on
Zimbabwe state television stating that the accused persons had made confessions implicating 6768 For the information on the media reports sorrounding the case of the murder of case of Cain Nkala this research has depended on information from MEDIA MONITORING PROJECT ZIMBABWE MEDIA UPDATE # 2001/46, http://pambazuka.org/en/category/media/4443
The ZANU PF Bulawayo Chairman,as then he was, Jabulani Sibabanda was quoted saying, “That is terrorism and we are going to fight it… Politically, militarily, whichever way. We have got the right as a people to defend ourselves. And I have got a right to mobilize my people in my province against terrorism and that I am going to do” This shows media statements did not only throw the principle of innocent until proven guilty out of the door but the statements were couched in hate speech and state propaganda advocating for violence againist its own cistizens. Minister John Nkomo was interviewed by Ruben Barwe on ZTV, and Ruben Barwe asked, “...Could you infer that this was done in a military fashion because shoe strings really don’t kill people?” the minister answered, “…this is an operation very reminiscent of what the Selous Scouts used to do and we can read and see very clearly a similar pattern in this particular area”. Andrew Ndlovu said, “…Now we have realized that it (MDC) is a terrorist party and we feel…that the MDC must be banned with immediate effect”.(ZBC, 14/11/2001, 8pm)
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 32
themselves and others in the abduction and subsequent murder of Cain Nkala. The footage
also showed the accused persons being interrogated by the police on National television and
the report stated that they were giving indications of where they buried the body. There was
total disregard of the fact that the alleged confessions were made after the two of the accused
persons were gruesomely tortured by the police.69 The rights of the accused persons where
undressed.70
In this case the mighty fourth estate never investigated or reported about the alleged torture of
the accused persons in gross violation of the rights of accused and detained persons. The
media was used as a medium to perpetuate further violation of the accused persons. Neither
did the court convict anyone for contempt of court or even issue a statement to tell the media
to dissuade from the campaign against the accused persons.
Furthermore the statements made regarding the allegations that the suspects had money and
guns on them, was not based on any evidence which support the statements. Moreover the
Herald published two articles which seemed like the writer had actually witnessed the murder
first hand titled “MDC reliving the Nazi era”71 and “Nkala prayed for his captors”72. The
writer described the abduction of Nkala, how he begged for his life and in his last moments
asked if he could make a last prayer in which he did not only pray for his soul and the lives
of his wife and children but also that “God forgive his captors”73. The death of Cain Nkala
was compared to that of Jesus Christ. All this occurred while the matter was pending before
the courts. Surely Freedom of expression cannot be used to violate the rights of another
human being to such an extent. If freedom of expression is not absolute in any jurisdiction
the framers of constitutions the world over sought to protect the public against such
irresponsible exercise of freedom of expression.
69 Findings on the Human Rights Situation in Zimbabwe by United Nations and Regional Human Rights Bodies (2000-2005) Findings on Human Rights in Zimbabwe by UN and regional bodies. By The International Commision of Jurists (ICJ) on the 61st session of the United Nations. At paragraph 1889
70Section 50 (1) (c) state that, Any person who is arrested must be treated humanely and with respect for their inherent dignity.71The Herald 14 November 200172The Herald 16 November 2001
73 Ibid
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 33
After the trial the court came to the decision which shocked everyone that the accused
persons where innocent of the crime. Most people were shocked because they had been led
by the Media to believe that the accused persons where guilty of the crime and some still do.
The right to liberty of the accused persons was protected and in the end there was a fair trial
but the judicial process was brought into contempt. Justice must not only be done but it must
be seen to be done. Adherence to the principles of the Subjudice rule in this matter would
have caused less harm on freedom of expression than on the dignity and rights of the accused
persons.
The media had negated the principle of innocent until proven guilty and that the threshold for
guiltiness is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. This was in clear violation of the Subjudice
rule, and certainly does reduce the people’s confidence in the administration of justice. If
people lose confidence in the judicial system it will create an environment of fear and people
will resort to self-help. There can be no doubt that this was an unchecked interference with
the administration of justice and the worst case of trial by media.
Trial by newspaper or by media is and remains a real danger to a fair and impartial disposal
of an issue in the judicial process.74 The media as the fourth estate holds overwhelming
power. The media has the ability to control the moods and emotions of a people. It can be
used to drive change or propaganda. People feed off the media each and every day. The
media in Zimbabwe is also largely state owned. The only nationwide television broadcasting
network and all the radio stations except one owned by a member of the ruling party are all
state owned. The Largest Print media distributing company, ZimPapers, is also state owned.75
This shows that the largest amount of media is controlled the executive which commands a
majority in parliament and appoints members of the judiciary. Certainly if there is any truth in
the age old adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, therefore with
great power there must be great responsibility.
4.7 Onismus Sibanda v. Archbishop Pius Ncube
74 See S v Harber and Another [1988] 4 All SA 496 (AD) that an absolute rule against prejudgment is necessary in order to prevent a gradual slide towards trial by newspaper or Tele-vision.
75 Parliamentary debates, 27,50:5078-9 in a democratic society, government has no greater right to be heard than anybody else. The imposition of government's views on every broadcast is an unconstitutional infringement of the right of freedom of expression.
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 34
In the case of Onismus Sibabnda v Archbishop Pius Ncube, while the case was pending
before the courts President Robert Mugabe made a statement that he will be praying for
Archbishop Pius Ncube who was at the centre of a sex storm involving a married woman and
possibly up to ten other women, he said in a televised speech on 18 July 2007.76 President
Mugabe said he would pray for the Roman Catholic bishop to be redeemed by God for his
"sins".77 This was said after Onesimus Sibanda filed a Z$20 billion78 lawsuit alleging that the
cleric bedded his wife over a period of two years. State media had reported that Ncube slept
with at least 10 other women during the period he was being trailed by a private investigator.
In addition to the comments made by the President state media Newsnet showed clips of
Ncube in bed with Sibanda's wife and another unidentified woman. State media went on
further than just showing clips of Ncube in bed with Sibanda's wife and another unidentified
woman, it went into an overdrive over Ncube's alleged steamy sexual peccadilloes with a
married woman. This drew criticism from the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA
Zimbabwe)79. The media coverage by ZBC, The Chronicle and The Herald, was against
ethical journalism and the principle of fair and balanced reporting. The matter was also before
the courts and thus violated the Subjudice rule.80 The press statement by MISA Zimbabwe
went on to state that, the state media was embarking on a parallel 'legal process' and
persecution of the Archbishop, acts which should be condemned as unacceptable from any
media that intends to be respected and believed by society.81
Furthermore this was a perfect example of the abuse of state media by those in power for
political gain just like the murder case of Cain Nkala in which the security agents colluded
with the state media to tarnish the alleged perpetrators of the murder well before the court
case. Zimbabwe was shocked that after mounting such 'evidence' against the 'perpetrators' the
76Televised speech addressed to mourners and ZANU PF supporters who gathered at the burial of the late Brigadier General Fakazi Muleya. Story by Torby Chimhashu, New Zimbabwe July 18, 2007 http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/roma37.16690.html . See also www.bishopaccountability.org 77Ncube had been a thorn on Mugabe's side and was respected worldwide for his stand against human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. Ncube has said he prayed for Mugabe's death and is amiable to a foreign military invasion of the country to oust the 83-year-old leader.78 Amount is in the then currency of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwean Dollars. Was reported to be equivalent to (£80
000) according to http://www.bishop-accountability.org79 http://www.bishop-accountability.org80 Loughty Dube, Misa Zimbabwe chairman, http://www.bishop-accountability.org
81Ibid
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 35
courts found the accused innocent.82 On behalf of MISA-Zimbabwe, he made a call for the
respect of the restorations of the rights of the parties and the media to engage in fair and
accurate reporting.
This paper is not advocating for the muzzling of the press. This paper is against the
perpetuation of injustice by the press hiding behind freedom of expression and the media. If
freedom of expression is not exercised responsibly it will become a powerful instrument of
injustice. The powers given to the media must be used in service of the public and they create
an obligation of honour to exercise this purpose only with the utmost sense of responsibility.
The contending entitlements of the court to uphold its authority and of the freedom of the
expression and the media to comment on matters of public interest must be reconciled.
Without freedom of expression there society will be in fetters. Freedom of expression and the
media, however, is not an end in itself but a means to an end of a free and democratic society.
The same applies to the independence of the judiciary for the proper functioning of an
independent judiciary puts the freedom of expression and the media in its proper perspective.
The media must never be used by the government of the day to seek a conviction. The media
must never be a medium to violate human rights. In the case of In re Phelan 187783. It was
held that,
“I do not in the slightest degree desire to fetter free and open discussion in the public
prints of the proceedings of this court. The liberty of the press is a great privilege and
a great safeguard to the public. Consequently the law – the very protector of the
liberty of the press – will not on the fronts of public policy allow that liberty – its own
creature – to be abused and employed as an instrument to bring the administration of
justice into contempt.”
One human right cannot be used to erase another.
4.8 Prevention of any prejudice
82 Ibid 83 as cited in Guide to Media law In Zimbabwe by G Feltoe, Legal Resources Foundation (LRF) November
01, 2002. archive.kubatana.net/docs/resour/021101mediaguide_gf.pdf
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 36
It is rare for judges to be influenced by what they hear in the press however, judges are
human. There is the influential pull of the unconscious. Since judges, however, unfaltering,
are human, the subtle task of administering justice ought not to be made improperly
challenging by irresponsible publication. While the media may, in the public interest, make
rational criticism of a judicial act or the judgment of a court for public benefit, they should
not cast scandalous accusations on, or impute indecorous motives or personal prejudice to the
judge.84
According to Lord Widgery CJ in A-G v Times Newspapers Ltd
“It is widely recognised that a professional judge is likely to be unaffected by
temperate comment on the case before him, even though that comment is one sided,
but we should not, in our judgment, too readily accept the proposition that a judge
sitting alone is not open to prejudice of this kind. Unfortunately, the comments made
on pending proceedings are not always temperate, and, indeed, they may in some
instances be so strong as to amount to a threat to the judge that if he does not follow
the arguments there put forward, he may be severely criticised, if not pilloried
subsequently.”85
There still also remains a further consideration which is of fundamental importance that
justice must not only be done but it must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
Parties to a case and even outsiders should be satisfied that the courts conclusion is based
only upon information laid before the court in an admissible way and in the absence of any
external meddling forces. There is also need to remove any such suspicion to restore public
confidence in the judiciary.
Furthermore it is the contention of this research that the person making the statement and the
environment prevalent in the state may make even the simplest of statements prejudicial.
Statements made by Government officials are to be regarded as more prejudicial than those
made by the common person. Earlier it has been alluded to that the media is largely in the
hands of the ruling party and also taking into consideration the fact that during the land
84K Ritchie and G Ansell, Reporting the Courts – A handbook for South African journalists (2006)
85[1972] 3 All ER 1136 (QBD) at 1142c-d:
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 37
reform cases Judges were being attacked in public, the war veterans invaded the supreme
court and the Chief Justice and some judges were forced to resign. The people's confidence in
the judiciary especially when the case involves the ruling party is very low.
4.9 To maintain public confidence in the administration of justice
The justifiability of the law of contempt has been before the courts before and in this instance
it was the case of In re Chinamasa86 the Supreme Court decided that the crime was not
unconstitutional. The court maintained that the courts should certainly be criticised, and the
courts are certainly strong enough to withstand criticism. However the court went on further
to state that criticism should never be calculated to create real or substantial risk of impairing
the public confidence in the administration of justice. The court also decided that although
contempt of court restricts freedom of expression, the limitation imposed upon this right is
reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. Because of the narrow formulation of the rule it
does not excessively limit the right of freedom of speech. Freedom of expression must be
weighed against public confidence in the administration of justice.87
4.10 Conclusion
This chapter has shown that though the Subjudice is underlined by very important principles
it should be invoked narrowly and only when justified in the circumstances. There is nothing
in and of itself malicious in commentary and discussion of proceedings whether before,
during, or after its conclusion. Indeed, it is healthy in egalitarianism for public officials to
comment on matters of public concern. There is a significant and fundamental difference
between commenting on litigation and inappropriately influencing that litigation or the
integrity and neutrality of the courts. The law is there to address certain mischief in society
and it must be wide enough and also limited enough to address that particular mischief. The
day we abandoned the law for lawlessness is the day our society fall. The survival of our
society is dependent upon respect of the law and the suppression of absolute power.
CHAPTER 5
86 2000 (2) ZLR 322 (S)
87 See also the South African case of S v Mamabolo 2001 (3) SA 409 (CC)
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 38
Comparative analysis
5.1 Introduction
This chapter will give a comparative analysis of how the Subjudice rule applies in other
jurisdictions which have adopted this rule from English Law. The Chapter shall look at the
application of the Subjudice rule in South Africa, Tanzania and then England itself. This
chapter shall look at the Constitutions and the penal codes of the respective countries. It shall
also look at the common law or case law of that country. This chapter shall note the
differences or similarities in the formulation and application of the Subjudice rule in these
jurisdictions.
5.3 The South African approach
To give a clear picture of how the Subjudice rule has been applied in South Africa I shall first
look at the relevant enactments, the impact of the constitution in interpreting the Subjudice
law and then how case law has defined the parameters of the Subjudice rule.
5.3.1 Freedom of expression, press and the media.
Section 16 (1) (a) guarantees everyone’s right to freedom of expression, which includes
freedom of the press and the media and freedom to receive and impart ideas. O’ Regan J in
Khumalo v Holomisa88 at paragraphs 22-24, stated that,
“The print, broadcast and electronic media have a particular role in the protection of
freedom of expression in our society. Every citizen has the right to freedom of press
and the media and the right to receive information and ideas. The media are key
agents in ensuring that these aspects of the right to freedom of information are
respected. The ability of each citizen to be a responsible and effective member of our
society depends upon the manner in which the media carry out their constitutional
mandate. The media thus rely on freedom of expression and must foster it. In this
sense, they are both bearers of rights and bearers of constitutional obligations in
relation to freedom of expression.”89
88 2002 (5) SA 401 (CC) paragraphs 22-24
89Ibid
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 39
An efficient and autonomous media is a vital agent in ensuring that the government is
transparent, open responsive and accountable to its citizens.90
From the above passage it is clear that the South African interpretation of freedom of
expression and the media is mostly the same as ours.91 In practice though, it can be disputed.
It is given a wide interpretation and it is recognised as the hallmark of an independent and
democratic society. In South Africa it was also recognised that the freedom has to have its
limitations. Section 36(1) of the Constitution of South Africa provides that:
“The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general
application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open
and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into
account all relevant factors including
(a)the nature of the right,
(b)the importance of the purpose of the limitation,
(c)the nature and extent of the limitation,
(d)the relation between the limitation and its purpose,
(e)less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.”92
The limitation clause in the South African constitution is couched in a slightly different with
ours. However the effect of the provision is by and large the same with section 86 of the
Zimbabwean Constitution. The application of these limitations essentially entails the
balancing of values and the benefits of the rights vis a vis the benefits of the infringements.93
In the case of S v Mamabolo and others94 Even though freedom of expression is essential to
our democratic society, it is not absolute. It must be construed in the milieu of the other
values enshrined in the Constitution. In this case, the values are human dignity, freedom and
equality.95
90 Government of the Republic of South Africa v Sunday Times Newspaper and Another1995 (2) SA 221 1-228 A
91 See Retrofit (Pvt) Ltd v P.T.C and Another 1995 (2) ZLR 19992 Section 36 (1) of the Constitution of South Africa 199793 See S v. Makwanyane and Another 1995 (3) SA 391(CC)94 2001 (3) SA 409 (CC) at paras 40-41.
95www.sanef.org.za/images/uploads/Sub_Judice_Rule_March_2005.pdf . See also S v Mamabolo (E.TV and others intervening) 2001 (3) SA 409 (CC) at paras 40-41.
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 40
5.3.2 The Subjudice rule in South Africa.
Section 39(2) of the Constitution of South Africa provides that when a court develops the
common law, it must promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights. This means
that the court should ensure that the common law (including the Subjudice rule) is consistent
with the fundamental rights set out in the Bill of Rights.
The case of Midi Television (Pty) Ltd t/a E-TV v Director of Public Prosecutions96
maintained the Subjudice rule is part of South African law as a species of contempt of court.97
The case confirmed that a publication will be in contravention of the Subjudice rule if the
prejudice which might be caused to the administration of justice is “demonstrable and
substantial” and there is a “real risk” that prejudice will occur to proceedings pending98
before the courts if publication takes place. According to Van Rooyen 2014,
“Mere conjecture or speculation that prejudice might occur will not be enough...
Applying the ordinary principles that come into play when a final interdict is sought,
if a risk of that kind is clearly established, and it cannot be prevented from occurring
by other means, a ban on publication that is confined in scope and in content and in
duration to what is necessary to avoid the risk might be considered.”99
In the during the trial of Oscar Pistorius the trial became a media circus, possibly with much
more publicity than any other trial in the region. Television cameras were fixed into the
courtroom, there was live coverage of the trial. Several concerns were raised about the breach
of the subjudice rule however unlike the case studies in Zimbabwe shown in the previous
96Midi Television (Pty) Ltd t/a E-TV v Director of Public Prosecutions (WC) 2007 (5) SA 540 (SCA)97According to Burchell and Milton Principles of Criminal Law 2 nd Edition (1997) at 693, one commits contempt of court by unlawfully and intentionally violating the dignity, repute or authority of a judicial body or interfering in the administration of justice in a matter pending before it.98 The Subjudice rule applies to “pending” proceedings. Criminal proceedings are probably pending from the
moment of arrest, summons or a warning to appear. Civil proceedings are pending from the time of issue of summons or an application is launched. Proceedings remain pending until all appeals have been exhausted or the time period for the lodging of an appeal has expired. R v Davies : Ex Parte Delbert Evans [1945] 2 All ER 167. Greater latitude is given in relation to statements that are published after the initial matter has been decided by a court but while an appeal is being pursued (see Kelsey Stuart’s Newspaperman’s Guide to the Law 5th ed. (1990) at 107).
99 Van Rooyen, K., 2014, ‘Challenges to the Subjudice rule in South Africa’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 70(1), Art. #2714, 9 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v70i1.2714
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 41
page there was no improper motive by the media houses calculated to influence the
proceedings in any way.
In the judgment by Mlambo J in the case of Multichoice (Pty) Ltd and Others v National
Prosecuting Authority and Another; In Re: S v Pistorius and Another Related Matter 100the court specifically held that
“[I]t has come to my attention that there are media houses that intend to establish 24
hour channels dedicated to the trial only and that panels of legal experts and retired
judges may be assembled to discuss and analyse the proceedings as they unfold.
Because of these intentions, it behoves me to reiterate that there is only one court that
will have the duty to analyse and pass judgment in this matter. The so-called trial by
media inclinations cannot be in the interest of justice as required in this matter and
have the potential to seriously undermine the court proceedings that will soon start as
well as the administration of justice in general.”
It is clear from Mlambo J’s order that he was cautious to ensure that Pistorius is not maligned
as an accused person, as his disparagement would pose a prospective impairment to the
course of justice. The interests of justice demand that fair trial rights stay supreme. It is
imperative to bear in mind that the path of justice is not only concerned with the consequence
of the trial or the substantive issues but also the whole process.
According to Brenda Wardle101 From the stance taken by the South African Constitutional
Court, it apparent that it can never be held that the public has a more greater right to be
informed which supplants the rights of rights of an accused person to be tried in a manner that
is fair and humane. Brenda Wardle
It is also pertinent to note that publication will not be considered unlawful unless a court is
convinced that the cons of curtailing the free flow of information outweigh its advantages. In
making that evaluation, the court does not only consider the interests of those associated with
100 [2014] 2 All SA 446 (GP)101 The sub judice rule and the Oscar Pistorius case: Will the crime of contempt of court ex facie curiae
become abrogated by disuse? By Brenda Wardle LLB LLM (Unisa) is Chief Operations Officer at Wardle
College of Law in Johannesburg
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 42
the publication but, more importantly, the interest of every person having access to
information.
5.4 The English Approach
The Subjudice rule in England is codified under the contempt of court Act of 1981 and it is a
strict liability offence section 2 (2) which simply states that the strict liability rule applies
only to a publication which causes a substantial risk that the administration of justice in
pending proceedings will be gravely prejudiced or impeded.102
The common law form of contempt was much stricter since the requirement was a tendency
to prejudice. The enactment of this statutory provision seems to be in response to the decision
of the case of European Court of Human Rights in Sunday Times v. United Kingdom.103
The case was brought before the European Court for Human Rights after the UK court had
granted a ban against the paper to publish the stories regarding the Thalidomide case104. The
European court applied a three part test, that is;
(a) the infringement on freedom of expression was prescribed by law
(b) There was a legitimate aim of maintaining the authority of the judiciary
(c) but it was not necessary in a democratic society.
The court rejected that there were competing principles in this issue but just one principle of
freedom of expression that is subjected to various exceptions and these exceptions must be
narrowly interpreted. The court also concluded that the public interest in this case was too
high to restrict freedom of expression. The court ruled that in this case the law restricting
comments upon prejudicial cases was in violation of freedom of expression therefore the
injunction was overruled.
Therefore the law in England now which corresponds or which is in line to freedom of
expression is now similar to ours which needs a substantial risk of prejudice. However in
England the rule is stricter than in Zimbabwe and South Africa because of the fact that
England unlike Zimbabwe and South Africa still uses the jury system. The jury system
102http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/contempt_of_court/ . See also Textbook on Civil Liberties and Human Rights By Richard Stone, https://books.google.co.zw/books?isbn=0198701551103 The Sunday Times v. United Kingdom, Series A No. 30, 14 EHRR 229.104These cases involved people who had been affected by the use of the drug called Thalidomide and they were suing the manufacturers of the drug.
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 43
comprises of a jury of ordinary people and they are more prone to external influence than
judges.
5.5 The Tanzanian Approach
In the Tanzanian Bill of Rights, article 17 that provides for a number of fundamental rights
including the right to free speech. The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania has
recognised the right to free speech under Article 18 of the Constitution. Article 18 of the
Tanzanian Constitution basically states out that, every person has a freedom of opinion and
expression of his ideas including freedom to communicate and receive protection from
interference with his communication. It also includes the right to be informed at all times of
various important events of life and activities of the people and also of issues of importance
to the society.
Free speech like in any other jurisdiction has its usual restrictions. Restriction to the right to
freedom of speech is provided for under Article 30 which states that human rights in the
constitution should not be exercised in a way that infringes upon the rights of others or
society. Freedom of speech cannot also render unlawful any law or lawful act in accordance
with the law for the purposes of preventing prejudice to the rights of others. Most importantly
article 30 (2) (d) of the Tanzanian Constitution restricts free speech for the protection of the
reputation, rights and freedoms of others or the privacy of persons involved in any court
proceedings, prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information, or safeguarding the
dignity, authority and independence of the courts.
5.5.1 Subjudice Rule in Tanzania.
The fact that the Tanzanian constitution allows derogation from free speech to protect the
rights of others and to safeguard the dignity, authority and independence of the judiciary
shows influence of the Subjudice rule. Furthermore section 114 of the Tanzanian Penal Code
provides that,
Contempt of court (1) Any person who–
“(d) while a judicial proceeding is pending, publishes, prints or makes use of any
speech or writing, misrepresenting the proceeding, or capable of prejudicing any
person in favour of or against any parties to the proceeding, or calculated to lower
the authority of any person before whom that proceeding is being had or taken; is
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 44
guilty of an offence, and is liable to imprisonment for six months or to a fine not
exceeding five hundred shillings.”105
One can see that the formulation of the Tanzanian contempt of court law in relation to the
Subjudice rule shown is clearer than in our law. It talks about misrepresentation of the trial
and the capabilities of prejudice in favour or against any party. These are not directly
addressed in our law. This shows that the Subjudice rule is in use in Tanzania the same way as
it is in our jurisdiction however it lacks like in our case proper mechanisms and guidelines as
to its application.
5.5 Evaluation and Conclusion
This Chapter has shown that the Subjudice rule applies in most jurisdictions like ours. The
Subjudice rule is not only relevant in jurisdictions with a jury but also jurisdictions without
one. It has been shown that the Subjudice rule is an elusive concept and more has to be done
in order to conscientise the public about this principle and make sure everyone understands
their duty to uphold the rule of law and the independence and dignity of the judiciary.
The other jurisdictions referred to in this chapter have a different political atmosphere than
ours. This is relevant because law does not operate outside politics but in a political
environment. In the Zimbabwean political atmosphere the main perpetrators of the Subjudice
rule are the government officials. Their main objective is to intimidate the judiciary and the
persons seeking justice. It is pertinent that in order for any democratic society to have a
healthy growth public officials should have respect for the law and the judicial process. The
people will only have confidence in the judicial system if their leaders lead by example.
CHAPTER 6
Recommendations and conclusion.“Legal obligations that exist but cannot be enforced are mere ghosts that are seen in the law
but are elusive to the grasp.” Oliver Wendell Holmes J
105www.academia.edu/7361489/SUB_JUDICE_RULE_IN_TANZANIA
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 45
6.1 Recommendations
For law to have any function in society it does not only have to be codified, but there must be
certainty about the law, state policy should be in line with the law, administrative measures to
facilitate the law should be put in place and there must be effective judicial remedies. The
enforcement of this rule has proved difficult.
The law relating to the Subjudice rule is uncertain. In our law, at times, it is not certain
whether the Subjudice rule constitutes contempt of court or obstruction of justice or both.
There are no clear guidelines on the actions that breach the Subjudice rule. The law needs to
specific. This removes the air of mystery around this rule and makes the law clear.
There should be an ethical code of conduct that guides the media. This is not done to curtail
free press but to promote fair and accurate reporting. Not even state media is above the law; it
must work within the framework of the constitution. In Zimbabwe there is need of a free,
independent and responsible press. The code of ethics should include restriction on; making
payments to witnesses to comment on the evidence they will give in court or to extract
information from them before the trial; intimidating witnesses; publishing information
obtained from confidential court documents106; reporting on the defendant's prior convictions;
mounting an organised crusade to influence court proceedings; reporting on court
proceedings in contravention of reporting restriction or a court order; breaching gag order;
anticipating the course of a trial or pre-emptying the outcome; revealing the identity of child
victims or defendants, witnesses or victims of sexual offences.
Respect for the law is like a river that flows from the mountain top going downwards.
Respect for the law should begin from the highest offices of government. Hence state policy
should reflect what the law says, because the negation of even the smallest of laws might
have great consequences. There is need for reform on the part of the state to desist from
trying to influence the coursed of justice and the independence of the judiciary.
The state should also consider replacing a Subjudice rule as a specie of contempt with a Sub-
judice principle. The ethical principle would accomplish the deterrent and punitive character-
106 www.out-law.com › Topics › TMT & Sourcing
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 46
istics of the rule, but courts and tribunals should still be in charge of granting a suitable rem-
edy, in proper circumstances.
State policy is reflected through the pronouncements and acts of the executive. Public
officials should openly disapprove actions that try to stifle the administration of justice and
publicly promote the administration of justice, independence of the judiciary, the rule of law
and fair trials. The proper functioning of a state is dependent upon the people in that state to
be law abiding citizens. The executive and all public officials should spearhead these
practices.
The state should take appropriate administrative measures to ensure that the media does not
engage in Subjudice. Preventative or proactive measures should be encouraged rather than
reactive measures. If a Media Commission is eventually established, there is need to establish
an independent state owned media or to do away with state owned media and privatise it. The
need of an independent media cannot be gainsaid. Journalists should not work in fear but they
must be given freedom within the confines of the constitution. That is what freedom of the
media entails.
More considerations on guidelines can be publishing details of a defendant's lifestyle, if
related to the charge. Recording or filming inside court premises without permission.
Reporting proceedings concerning Mental Health Act applications and national security in a
way contravening the law, adoption and other children related hearings.
In India the Supreme Court laid down the constitutional principle which will allow the
aggrieved parties to seek from appropriate court the postponement of the publication of court
hearings.107 The concerned court will make a determination on whether to postpone reporting
court proceedings on case-by-case basis. This practice will inform the practice that the
judiciary does not condone violation of the Subjudice rule and will work more as a deterrent
measure than a punitive one.
To enforce the law there must be effective judicial remedies. There has been no judicial
enforcement of the Subjudice rule where it actually matters. The fact that there has been
107http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-no-guidelines-to-regulate-media-reporting-of-sub-judice-matters-sc-1739372
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 47
flagrant violation of this rule while the judiciary is yet to convict anyone shows the public
that certain laws can be ignored. It also shows that it is an empty law one which does not
need to be followed hence the gross violation of the Subjudice rule. After so much flagrant
violation of this rule surely someone should have answered to contempt of court or
obstruction of justice charges. The judiciary needs to come out and publicly denounce or
discourage breaches of the Subjudice rule. During the media circus surrounding the Mutasa
case the Chief justice published a statement directing the media to refrain from commenting
upon pending proceedings in a way that seeks to influence the court or impair the
administration of justice, this was a step in the right direction and it needs to be done more
often when the need arises. The courts also need to fulfil their major function of enforcing the
law. Enforcement of laws by the courts acts as a deterrent measure to would be perpetrators.
The judiciary needs to send the message that the law is not dead.
There is need for certainty of what is Subjudice what constitutes Subjudice and the nature of
acts which are protected under the Subjudice rule. It is pertinent that, criminal law, of
which contempt of court is a stem of, ought to be as certain as the behaviour which
it seeks to deter permits. Freedom of expression is fundamental to a democracy and it
should only be curtailed when the cause is justifiable. Therefore there is need for certainty.
A state controlled press does not exhibit the fundamental tenets of the right of freedom of
press and the media. While a responsible press will make sure that in the course of carrying
its duties it does not infringe on people's rights, a free and independent press promotes
freedom of expression speech and the media. This facilitates investigative journalism where
the press determines the real issues and disseminates accurate and informed information to
the public. This is what facilitates accountability and a progressive democratic institutions
and government.
6.2 Conclusion
This research has shown that freedom of expression and freedom of the media are
fundamental inalienable human rights. It has been noted that though these rights are
guaranteed they must be exercised responsibly. However there are not absolute they are
limited by the constitution and also by the law as long the limitations are justifiable in an
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 48
open free and fair democratic country. It has been shown that the Subjudice rule is a
justifiable limitation to freedom of expression and the media.
This paper has shown that the Subjudice rule is applies where comments made upon pending
proceedings pose substantial risk to the administration of justice. It has been established that
this test balances the right to freedom of expression and the media with the application of the
Subjudice rule which promotes the administration of justice, fair trial, independence of the
judiciary and the rule of law.
The dissertation also made a comparative analysis with other jurisdictions similar to ours. An
evaluation was made on how these countries have balanced the right to freedom of expression
and the media with the Subjudice rule. The paper concluded with recommendations of what
the writer thinks should be done in applying the rule in Zimbabwe. The paper has also
included best practices of other nations in its recommendations.
There is more to be done in our law in order to uphold the law. It is the trend that principles
which seek to uphold fundamental human rights such as the right to fair trial and the rule of
law are always negated for political reasons. It is time we have to move away from
politicising the administration of justice. The courts must be given room to exercise their
functions and if there is criticism let it be fair and honest criticism. There is need to maintain
the people's confidence in the judiciary.
DRAFT DISSERTATION | 49