The Supreme Court of Appeal on Monday reserved judgement in an application by the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) to broadcast the upcoming appeal hearing of Durban businessman Schabir Shaik on television and radio.
The public broadcaster seeks to record and broadcast the five-day appeal hearing with live visuals and sound for television and radio.
The appeal hearing is expected to start on September 25.
Alternatively the SABC wants to record the appeal hearing for delayed broadcasts on television and radio, in the form of edited highlights packages on various news-related programmes, including news bulletins.
”We submit that it would not be a hindrance or have [very] little effect,” Brian Pincus, counsel for the SABC, said on the presence of cameras and microphones in court.
Pincus also argued that live broadcasts from Parliament and provincial legislatures had not degraded the dignity of those institutions.
The SABC wants to put three television cameras in court, with a microphone in front of the bench where legal counsel will address the court, as well as microphones in front of each of the five presiding judges.
The public broadcaster submitted that it was its constitutional right to be able to record and broadcast the appeals.
The state and Shaik are opposing the application on the grounds that the rights of several of the parties involved would be infringed.
These include their rights of dignity and privacy as well as Shaik’s right to a fair trial.
”The serenity of the court would be lost,” Peter Olsen, for William Downer [the state] said in opposing the application.
”The court may be limited in its comment from the bench. The natural interaction between counsel and the bench would be lost due to the [ever-present] public television.”
Olsen submitted this also raised concerns about the ability of counsel to present their case. In documents filed by Shaik in the matter, his counsel felt live television impeded their sense of freedom in argument.
However, the SABC argued that Shaik’s right to a fair trial will not be infringed by permitting recordings.
”It is not the public perception outside that determines a fair trail but the judges on the bench,” said Pincus.
Counsel for Shaik, Jeremy Gauntlett, submitted that the SABC’s right to broadcast was not an absolute right.
”It does not function within a vacuum.”
Gauntlett said Shaik would also want to have the assurance that his appeal hearing did not suffer due to constraints.
Four of the five appeal judges to preside over the appeal heard argument on the SABC’s application. — Sapa