Judge Maumela rejects request to remove producers, but cautions that ground rules should be followed in the trial. (Photo by Anesh Debiky/Gallo Images/Getty Images)
The producers of the Netflix documentary about the murder of footballer Senzo Meyiwa have been accused of flouting the sub judice rule by airing the film, which allegedly resulted in the intimidation of witnesses.
Despite this, Judge Tshifhiwa Maumela rejected the request by the defence team and the state to remove from the courtroom, 10/10 Film, which produced the Meyiwa documentary that apparently seeks to reconstruct and form opinions about people linked to the footballer’s killing.
On Monday, in the Pretoria high court, Maumela said he was concerned about some of the “unethical tactics” used by the production company, such as recording defence lawyers when they consult their clients inside the courtroom.
He warned the filmmakers, and the rest of the media contingent, to adhere to the “court’s ground rules” on ethics, and should only take visuals or recordings of people testifying and the legal teams in court, and not make anyone else “uncomfortable”.
Maumela added that he had no authority to remove any media outlet that had made a successful media application.
In a rare sign of unity since the case began, advocate Dan Teffo, who represents the accused — Muzikawukhulelwa Sibiya, Bongani Ntanzi, Mthobisi Ncube and Mthokoziseni Maphisa — his instructing attorney TT Thobane and state prosecutor George Baloyi agreed that 10/10 Films should be barred from being present in court.
Zandile Mshololo, who represents the fifth accused, Fisokuhle Ntuli, did not comment on the removal application.
Baloyi read from a supreme court of appeals judgment on media presence in courts: “[Media coverage] increases understanding of, and respect for, the judiciary based on the public’s increased ability to observe the daily workings of the courts.”
But he said the production company had violated the legal rule – sub judice – which prevents comment on a trial if it affects the administration of justice.
“10/10 Films flighted a documentary a few days before the trial started. There is an old sub judice rule that, once proceedings are before the courts, no comment should be aired if that comment will influence [the] witnesses,” Baloyi said.
His contentions were supported by Teffo, who said people he intended to call to testify on his clients’ behalf were interviewed by 10/10 Films and their views were aired, resulting in the “intimidation of my witnesses”.
“Here, we are dealing with a criminal matter. Let them [the film producers] bring an application [to cover the trial] in another court.
“We will attend to them, we are not scared of them, and we will defeat them. But, for now, they must get out of court,” Teffo said.
But advocate Ben Winks, who represents the filmmakers, said the media’s “constitutional rights that are vested are sought to be wrenched away from my clients” by the removal application.
Winks added that there was “nothing wrong” with the public forming their opinion on criminal trials aired by filmmakers or news organisations, saying the removal of the producers would have a ripple effect in other media outlets.
“There will have to be a gagging order on everybody until the end of the trial [should the removal be granted] … Documentary makers are media houses,” Winks said.