In a civil case, however, two Sunday Times journalists were served South African legal subpoenas to testify in Cape Town as part of a case in a foreign jurisdiction between author Wilbur Smith and his stepson Dieter Schmidt. Privacy concerns, with judicial and ethical implications, arose during the year with the exploitation of the image of a parentless young man, Happy Sindane, by Radio Tuks and by a paint company. Similar concerns resurfaced when prior to any appearance in court, some media identified a group of youths related to a former cabinet minister who were alleged to have gang-raped a woman. Noseweek magazine identified the son of a leading politician who allegedly had rape-charges against him dropped after the complainant was apparently offered a lucrative job by a friend of the family. Journalists’ right to refuse pre-publication sight of an article to outsiders was upheld by Justice Essop Patel who turned down an application by a company seeking to interdict and access a draft of a news story from the Mail and Guardian newspaper before the article was published. But pre-publication preview was also raised in a separate case where a businessman brought an action against the Cape Argus in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA). The outcome of this case will be highly significant for the media. Public awareness of PAIA remains low, and the media lag in using its provisions. In a set-back for media access, the Cape High Court rejected an application by the SABC to broadcast the hearings of an enquiry into internal racism by the SA Rugby Football Union. So This Is Democracy? 2003 72 Media Institute of Southern Africa BOTSWANA LESOTHO MALAWI MOZAMBIQUE NAMIBIA SOUTH AFRICA Munusamy unsuccessfully appealed to the High Court, which in effect declared her a primary source of evidence. Shortly before her application to take her appeal to the next level was postponed to 2004, Hefer formally excused her from testifying on the basis that the appeal would delay proceedings, and he was satisfied that her evidence would only be of peripheral value. This decision vindicated the argument of media organisations MISA-SA, Freedom of Expression Institute, SA National Editors Forum, and the Media Workers Association of South Africa, which had joined forces to launch amicus curiae (friends of the court) actions alongside Munusamy’s individual appeals. The organisations had argued that journalists should not generally be called to testify, and that if they were, this should only be as a last resort - by which time, an informed decision could be made as to how essential their (usually secondhand) testimony would really be. Several journalists were subpoenaed or invited to give evidence at the Commission during 2003. Fortunately, those who refused were not pursued. SWAZILAND Similar complexities existed in other arenas. Thus, the vexed question of the Fourth Estate being compelled to testify in judicial process by the Third Estate was a major issue in 2003 and may reach the Constitutional Court in 2004. Former journalist Ranjeni Munusamy initiated this trajectory following two unsuccessful attempts to persuade the Hefer Commission to drop a subpoena requiring her to testify about her journalistic work. The Commission rejected Munusamy’s claims of receiving death threats from some sources and her professional concern to protect the identity of her sources. TANZANIA In short, an uneasy and mixed situation prevailed between politicians and the press. ZIMBABWE ZAMBIA rights groups raised concerns, however, over Government’s promotion in 2003 of an “AntiTerrorism” bill whose vagueness lent it to abuse against legitimate media activities. In particular, the bill would restrict coverage and therefore the public’s right to know, and also put unprecedented legal pressure on journalists to reveal sources. The draft law was subsequently revised. ANGOLA State of the media in Southern Africa - 2003