In a recent ruling, a judge underlined the crucial balance between media freedom and the public’s right to be informed about court decisions. This followed a case in which an advocate, whose name had been struck off the roll of advocates, sought to hold a media house and its journalist accountable for defamation. The advocate argued that because he was appealing the decision to strike him from the roll, the original ruling was suspended, and the media should not report on it during the appeal process.
However, Deputy Judge President Takalani Tatshibvumo, presiding in the Limpopo High Court, dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the public’s right to know about court outcomes as they happen cannot be delayed simply because an appeal is pending. He pointed out that suspending the publication of court decisions could create unreasonable barriers to the media’s role in keeping the public informed, especially in cases involving significant legal outcomes.
The dispute began when the News24 website published an article about advocate Kevin Maluleke, labeling him a dishonest lawyer after his name was struck from the roll. Maluleke, who was appealing the decision, took the matter to court, seeking to have the article removed on the grounds that it was defamatory.
The situation escalated when, during the hearing, Maluleke had been excused temporarily by the court for “domestic chores” but failed to return, leading the court to proceed with the hearing in his absence. The decision to remove him from the roll of advocates was handed down shortly afterward. Upon learning of the ruling, Maluleke filed an application to appeal, while the media house continued to publish the article.
Despite his efforts to have the article removed, the media refused, leading Maluleke to turn to court again, arguing that the article was unlawful. The judge initially sided with Maluleke, ruling that the article should be taken down. This decision, however, was appealed by the media company.
Judge Ratshibvumo, in a pointed reversal, found that the initial judgment had been flawed in its interpretation of the law regarding suspended orders. He argued that if the court’s approach was upheld, it would imply that no court decision could be reported on until an appeal was concluded—potentially years later. This, the judge contended, would effectively prevent media outlets from reporting on real-time legal developments, undermining the principle of media freedom.
The judge’s ruling reaffirmed the importance of transparency in the legal process, upholding the public’s right to be informed about court outcomes without unnecessary delays, even during appeals. This case highlights the ongoing tension between individual rights and broader societal interests, particularly when it comes to the role of the media in shaping public awareness of legal proceedings.
