The previous week the Supreme Court of Appeal found in favour of eTV’s right to broadcast a documentary without first submitting it to the State for ‘pre-screening’. The court said that the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) ‘must expect that freedom will not be abused until (the DPP) has adequate grounds for believing the contrary. But (the DPP) may not require the press to demonstrate that it will act lawfully as a precondition to the exercise of the freedom to publish in the absence of a valid law that accords him that right.’ Similarly in this case the media raised concerns about the State’s attitude that the media, generally, cannot be trusted or relied upon to be careful and selective in handling and publishing sensitive information. The judgement therefore upholds the rights of the media and entrusts it with the responsibility to deal professionally with the sensitive information likely to come up in the course of the trial. • ALERT Date: March 15, 2007 Persons: Professor Dieter Welz Violation: Other (academic freedom, freedom of expression) The University of Fort Hare has levelled charged against one of its members of staff, Professor Dieter Welz, accusing him of criticising the University administration in lectures, internal emails and to the media. Welz, a professor of Constitutional Law, is facing a disciplinary hearing. The University alleges that Prof Welz’s criticisms constitute a contravention of the ‘Conditions of Service of Staff Employed by the University of Fort Hare’, which were passed under the University of Fort Hare Act of 1969, apartheid legislation which has been repealed. Charges brought under repealed regulations are invalid. The ‘Conditions of Service’ are manifestly unconstitutional, with archaic definitions of misconduct. Prof Welz may well be protected as a ‘whistleblower’ under the Protected Disclosures Act and may also be protected by South Africa’s Constitution, which specifically protects academic freedom. Only in the most authoritarian societies do universities prevent academics from speaking to the media about their work, research and opinions and criticisms on the development of society and of their own institutions. South Africa, fortunately, is not such a society. Analysts, including the FXI, have stated that any disciplinary action against Prof Welz would constitute an unreasonable limitation on his right to academic freedom and would be unconstitutional. Whatever the outcome of Prof Welz’s hearing, FXI noted, irreparable harm has been done to the climate of free expression at Fort Hare and its reputation as a centre of academic excellence. • ALERT Date: February 21, 2007 Persons: Jimi Adesina Violation: Victory (academic freedom, freedom of expression) On February 20 2007, Magistrate IM Ristow of the Grahamstown Magistrates’ Court dismissed (with costs) charges of defamation made by University of Kwazulu Natal head of communications, Professor Dasarath Chetty, against Rhodes University academic Professor Jimi Adesina. The case follows a series of emails last in 2006, just before UKZN staff went on strike for better wages and working conditions. Before the strike began, Chetty’s office issued an email requesting “all staff who receive any media query related to the impending industrial action refer these calls” to his staff. In response, Adesina sent an open letter to Chetty, accusing him of attempting to gag academics and of being an instrument of authoritarianism at the university. He also claimed Chetty had brought sociologists into disrepute. Chetty then sued Adesina for defamation. So This Is Democracy? 2007 -84- Media Institute of Southern Africa