The battle to protect children’s identities
THE Centre for Child Law is in the middle of a legal battle with media houses to protect the identities of child victims, witnesses and offenders before and after they turn 18.
Despite the high court and Supreme Court of Appeal declining to extend the protection after a child turns 18, the centre is set to argue the case in the Constitutional Court in May.
The Criminal Procedure Act protects the identities of child witnesses and offenders who are involved in criminal cases.
Zita Hansungule, of the centre, said that in recent years the media began to interpret the protections offered by the law to end when the child turned 18.
“We are now asking that the law be developed to ensure that the identities of child witnesses and offenders are protected before and after they turn 18 years and that this protection should also extend to child victims. The aim is to ensure that the privacy, dignity and best interests of children are protected.”
She said that when children’s identities were revealed it could result in trauma and regression, stigma, shame and the fear of being identified.
William Bird, a director at Media Monitoring Africa, who is one of the applicants in the case, said they hoped to get clarity on critical issues around reporting on children.
“Not just as victims or witnesses of crimes but also where children, who are in the justice system, can be named and identified. Our view is we need to strike the balance between the rights and the dignity of the children with the right to open justice and media freedom.
“We are confident this is not only achievable but will lead to improved reporting on children, and a better appreciation and respect for the rights to both media freedom and the rights of our children.”
The clinical director of the Teddy Bear Foundation, Dr Shaheda Omar, said: “We need to keep in mind that they were still minors at the time, and it would not serve in their best interest to reveal their identities as you could expose them to risks, including being labelled or stigmatised. This could affect any opportunities that may arise.”
Attorney Shabnum Palesa Mohamed said the lives impacted and the public’s desire for information must be weighed.
“Ultimately, our Constitution is protective over the rights of a child, and the rights to dignity and privacy. The media house has at least two options available in pursuit of media freedom.
“The first is to engage with the victim, witness or offender for consent to reveal their names after they turn 18. If consent is unjustifiably refused, and the media believes the name, after they turn 18, is material to the story, they can apply to our courts for an urgent order. This balanced approach allows all sides the right to be heard and for an appropriate decision to be taken in the circumstances.”
The chairperson of the Law Society Criminal Law Committee, William Booth, said the Supreme Court’s decision to allow for the ruling to be appealed against indicated there were grounds to consider an amendment. “I feel it is best to get input from all role-players and for the legislature to consider the changes, but to do so speedily.”
He added that even if the section was changed, a person who had an interest could still request a court to uplift the anonymity aspect if it related to an adult, where it was in the interest of justice or freedom of expression.