“She ignited the match that started the fire that resulted in all of us coming to this beautiful city.”
Those words, uttered by Hefer Commission evidence leader Kessie Naidu, were among the welter of arguments that eventually convinced the commission that journalist Ranjeni Munusamy would have to testify.
Despite strong representations from Munusamy’s lawyers and several media pressure groups, former Appeal Court Judge Joos Hefer ruled that the former Sunday Times journalist would have to take the stand.
The Hefer commission, which started its hearings in Bloemfontein this week, was set up by President Thabo Mbeki to investigate allegations that National Director of Public Prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka was an apartheid spy, after a story to that effect appeared in City Press,/i>. Munusamy had taken the story to City Press after her own paper refused to publish it. She then resigned from the Sunday Times,/i>.
Media organisations had supported Munusamy’s decision not to testify and expected a ruling in her favour. Munusamy’s lawyer John Campbell immediately told Judge Hefer that he was going to take the decision for review to the high court.Â
Munusamy said she was obviously disappointed: “It’s a blow for me and the industry, but hopefully we can correct it at the high court.”
At the commission on Thursday the South African National Editors’ Forum [Sanef] and the Freedom of Expression Institute gave testimony explaining why journalists should not be made to testify and reveal their sources. Sanef representative Raymond Louw argued that the public trust in journalists would be reduced if they were seen as informants for the authorities.
“We are deeply concerned that constitutional rights to press freedom will be harmed if journalists are required to give evidence, supply materials and other information and possibly be required to identify confidential sources. The ultimate result of such harm to those Constitutional rights are that the role of the media in general in the country can be seriously harmed, if not rendered null and void,” said Louw.
The commission wants Munusamy to reveal the manner in which she came to be in possession of the information relating to Ngcuka, the people from whom she obtained it, what information she was able to verify herself and details of the documents she has in her possession, among other details of her investigation.
Munusamy’s lawyer argued that the consequences of such compulsion could place her in the intolerable position of having to choose between a criminal record and prison on the one hand and the destruction of her professional reputation and the betrayal of sources on the other. He argued that Munusamy did not have direct first-hand knowledge of the issues under investigation and asked the commission to get the information from other readily available sources.
“The public interest in her evidence is insufficient to displace the public interest in her maintaining a confidential relationship with her sources.” Munusamy also disclosed that her life could be in danger because she was sworn to secrecy by her sources, who had warned of adverse consequences if she revealed their identities.
But Naidu dismissed the argument, saying Munusamy had already indicated that her source was former ANC intelligence operative Mo Shaik.Â
Arguing that Munusamy could not present herself as an innocent journalist interested in facts, Naidu said: “She identified herself as a person who had taken a particular stand.”Â
Ngcuka’s lawyer Marumo Moerane said Munusamy had not acted simply as a journalist, but had actively participated in the promotion of the story. “If the article had appeared under her name in the Sunday Times we would understand. She put herself outside the normal protection of a journalist.”
Moerane said her sources were obviously Mac Maharaj and Shaik.
Munusamy’s legal team has until October 24 to file its application and those wanting to oppose it will have until October 28 to file their objections.