[ad_1]
New York, February 4, 2021 – In response to today’s decision by the South African Constitutional Court to uphold a 2019 High Court ruling that struck down legislation allowing oversight of members of the press, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists issued the following statement:
“Journalist Sam Sole’s communications should never have been intercepted, but today’s decision by the South African Constitutional Court, which confirms that laws authorizing such actions are unconstitutional, is an important step towards the creation of ‘a safe working environment for the press,’ said Angela Quintal, CPJ. Africa program coordinator.
“The right to privacy is essential for the flourishing of press freedom, and court decisions against surveillance must be supported by the political will to prevent further abuses. Surveillance of journalists remains a serious concern in the region and around the world. ”
In 2019, the South African High Court declared Act 70 of 2002 on the Regulation of Interception of Communications and the Provision of Communication-Related Information unconstitutional, following a legal challenge by amaBhungane, a South Africa-based investigative journalism organization, and Sam Sole, an investigative journalist at that outlet, according to a copy of the judgment reviewed by CPJ and a report from amaBhungane. In that case, Sole showed evidence that authorities intercepted his communications with a source while he was reporting on former South African President Jacob Zuma.
The judgment delivered today, following the authorities’ appeal against the 2019 decision to the Constitutional Court, stated that the 2002 law “does not provide adequate guarantees to protect the right to privacy, as supported by the rights of access to courts, freedom of expression and the media. , and legal privilege ”, according to a summary of the decision on the website of the Constitutional Court. The court, which is required to uphold rulings on constitutional issues, also said that “the confidentiality of journalists’ sources is protected by the rights to freedom of expression and the media”.
Two digital rights groups – South Africa-based Right2Know and UK-based Privacy International – also submitted an amicus brief in this case.
Source link
