Fair trial rights, freedom of the press, the principle of 'open justice' and the power of the Supreme Court of Appeal to regulate its own process

Abstract

One Mr Shaik was convicted in the Durban High Court on several counts relating to corruption with regards to payments he had made to the former Deputy President Mr Jacob Zuma and that he had bribed Mr Zuma to protect a French armaments company. Several companies which Mr Shaik controls, or in which he has a major interest, were also convicted. Mr Shaik and the companies sought leave to appeal against the convictions by the High Court to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Mr Shaik also sought leave to appeal against an order of civil forfeiture granted by the High Court in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998. Before the proceedings commenced the applicant informally requested permission from the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal to broadcast the proceedings. The Registrar, in line with the practice of the Supreme Court of Appeal, informed the applicant that visual recordings only without sound would be allowed. The applicant then made formal application to the Supreme Court of Appeal to broadcast the entire proceedings live on television and radio, as well as the right to produce edited highlights packages for television and radio audiences.