It creates a bill of rights in its chapter 2. among them is the right to freedom of expression which include the right to freedom of press and other media(sec16(1)(a). that been said, this right is not absolute and often gets abused by the media. one notes however that the media play such a key role in society and it is a platform for knowledge among others. This point is made clear in Khumalo & Others V Holomisa where the court held ” The media plays such a vital role in the protection of the freedom of expression in our society…they are both bearers of the right(Loose quote). But equally important right or perhaps more important contained therein is the right to dignity as contained in section 10 of the constitution.

I pause to mention that this right is an absolute right as opposed to the right to freedom of press and media and as such cannot be limited by law of general application as envisaged by section 36 of the constitution. another right that plays into this space is of course the right to privacy as contained in section 14 of the constitution. The latter right, just like the freedom of press can be limited in terms of the constitution. Now in circumstances where the two limit-able rights as it were, namely privacy and freedom of press, Our courts as well as the common law and other legislation are called in to provide some measure of balance in order to give effect to what is just, fair, and equitable.

I mentioned earlier that sometimes the media or some media houses through their journalist abuse the right to press and then hide behind common defences such as the fact that the publication of a defamatory article or material is in the public interest , or it is a protected fair comment or truthfulness of the publication. because often the media in their pursuit of the right to press, often transcend the boundaries of defamation and are thus liable for damages in instances where the courts find this to be the case. Journalists before they publish articles, must firstly give the subject the right of reply and this must be within reasonable time, having looked at the nature of the defamatory allegations, the source of such information and whether such source has given an untruth allegations before, whether the source has first hand information, does the source have ulterior motive, is the source reliable, does the source have any written notes or information to back his/her claims and so on, and this often journalists do not do and as such may be liable for damages for publications that can be found to be defamatory. Journalists are required by their code and the law to keep the notes which they may then produce to demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to very the reliability of the source, the reliability of the information itself and so on.
as an example, sometimes journalists will run a story about a particular suspect who is yet to appear in court on charges yet to be made know to the suspect, and the rely on the fact that this was in the public interest. in the case of Modiri V Minister of safety and security & others, the supreme court of appeal, which is the highest court of appeal on non constitutional matters, was called upon to consider whether the publication in the daily sun was defamatory. daily sun had published an article ” daily sun readers in the area are asked to help the police in catching stanford modiri who is allegedly involved in drug dealing, cash in transit heists and car theft…”
The supreme court of appeal held that it was not in the public interest or for the public benefit that the identity of the suspect had been made known to the public before his appearance in court. having regard to the fact that each case must be assessed on its own merits. the court went further to state that “If in that case the publication ultimately destroy or blemishes the dignity or reputation of the suspect or destroys his/her career, the defence of public interest or truthfulness will most likely fail”
It is so important to recognize and note that south africa has one of the best constitution in the world and as a developing nation with such a young, but yet affluent bible called constitution, which by the way we must benchmark ourselves against. it creates a bill of rights in its chapter 2. among them is the right to freedom of expression which include the right to freedom of press and other media(sec16(1)(a). that been said, this right is not absolute and often gets abused by the media. one notes however that the media play such a key role in society and it is a platform for knowledge among others.

This point is made clear in Khumalo & Others V Holomisa where the court held ” The media plays such a vital role in the protection of the freedom of expression in our society…they are both bearers of the right(Loose quote). But equally important right or perhaps more important contained therein is the right to dignity as contained in section 10 of the constitution. I pause to mention that this right is an absolute right as opposed to the right to freedom of press and media and as such cannot be limited by law of general application as envisaged by section 36 of the constitution. another right that plays into this space is of course the right to privacy as contained in section 14 of the constitution. The latter right, just like the freedom of press can be limited in terms of the constitution. Now in circumstances where the two limit-able rights as it were, namely privacy and freedom of press, Our courts as well as the common law and other legislation are called in to provide some measure of balance in order to give effect to what is just, fair, and equitable.

I mentioned earlier that sometimes the media or some media houses through their journalist abuse the right to press and then hide behind common defences such as the fact that the publication of a defamatory article or material is in the public interest , or it is a protected fair comment or truthfulness of the publication. because often the media in their pursuit of the right to press, often transcend the boundaries of defamation and are thus liable for damages in instances where the courts find this to be the case. Journalists before they publish articles, must firstly give the subject the right of reply and this must be within reasonable time, having looked at the nature of the defamatory allegations, the source of such information and whether such source has given an untruth allegations before, whether the source has first hand information, does the source have ulterior motive, is the source reliable, does the source have any written notes or information to back his/her claims and so on, and this often journalists do not do and as such may be liable for damages for publications that can be found to be defamatory. Journalists are required by their code and the law to keep the notes which they may then produce to demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to very the reliability of the source, the reliability of the information itself and so on.

As an example, sometimes journalists will run a story about a particular suspect who is yet to appear in court on charges yet to be made know to the suspect, and the rely on the fact that this was in the public interest. in the case of Modiri V Minister of safety and security & others, the supreme court of appeal, which is the highest court of appeal on non constitutional matters, was called upon to consider whether the publication in the daily sun was defamatory. daily sun had published an article ” daily sun readers in the area are asked to help the police in catching stanford modiri who is allegedly involved in drug dealing, cash in transit heists and car theft…”

The supreme court of appeal held that it was not in the public interest or for the public benefit that the identity of the suspect had been made known to the public before his appearance in court. having regard to the fact that each case must be assessed on its own merits. the court went further to state that “If in that case the publication ultimately destroy or blemishes the dignity or reputation of the suspect or destroys his/her career, the defence of public interest or truthfulness will most likely fail”

The law imposes certain restrictions relating to publications that belong to certain classes of court proceedings. the media may not publish the following, names of parties in the divorce proceedings ( until recently, this principle only applied to divorcing parties who have minor children, but now it also covers those who do not have minor children), name/s accused person/s in police custody who who is/are yet to appear and has not been charged as yet ( section 69 of the police Act, 1995), names of witnesses in custody who are to give evidence in any proceedings.  

It is for this reasons that, unlike we saw recently in Oscar’s case where the media made an application to have live broadcast of the court proceedings, the court likewise will not grant such application to have proceedings broadcast in certain cases, such as cases involving children.

So the right to open justice will be tempered with in that case. other cases include matters that if broadcast will compromise national security, cases involving sexual offenses of minor children and inquest cases among others.

However, the position has since changed through various statutory provisions that had the effect of changing the status quo, as it was realized that employees would be seriously disadvantaged if leave was withheld from them or that it was not paid in certain circumstances. there are a number of notable leaves that the employee would be entitled to and they are, Vacation leave, Sick Leave, Disability leave( Temporary), Maternity leave, Paternity leave, family responsibility leave, special leave.

It further provides guidelines on how and for how long the credit bureaus must keep records of the consumers on their databases

“Reckless lending!
The total outstanding South African consumer credit balance or debtors’ book stood at R1,3 Trillion at the end of December 2011 which emphasis the vital role played by credit lenders, particularly in households and small businesses.