In this respect, Pistorius’s trial should be an example to us all
Levels of expertise and efficiency elude most cases in SA courts
“DEVI, you think he did it?” The “he” is Oscar Pistorius. The “did it” is kill Reeva Steenkamp.
Automatically, my energy levels take a dive.
I answer: “He did do it. He admitted he killed Reeva.”
The response is not favourably received. But the recovery is quick. “Ja, we all know that, but what we want to know is do you think he murdered that girl? With intent?”
Another pretend defence advocate Barry Roux. Another wannabe state prosecutor Gerrie Nel.
It’s at this juncture (are you noting my lawyerspeak?) that I so wish I could say: “How the hell am I supposed to know? I wasn’t there.”
This would be followed by a well-practised Nel-like flourish, including my right-hand finger pointed at the accused (erm . . . asker of the question).
But I can’t. To do so would be rude. Instead, I say: “I really don’t know. It’s up to Judge Thokozile Masipa to decide after she hears all the evidence.”
I see that look float across their eyes. The look that reads: “Hmmph, the way she sits on that Channel 199 like she’s a big professor, but when you ask her anything in person she doesn’t know. Must be she’s only reading the Autocue the whole day.”
I imagine them going home to their families, telling them about the interaction and recounting how dof I actually am in person. There is nothing I can do about that.
I’m so hesitant to pass judgment — even after this week.
The one thing I’ve learnt with this case is that every single day brings with it a whole load of new angles. Making assumptions is not fair to the accused or to our criminal justice system. In the end, Masipa will decide.
But I’m not the only one being asked for an opinion.
Our makeup artist revealed that when people find out she’s working on the trial channel, people want to know if she does Pistorius’s makeup.
The channel’s hairstylist was advised that she needed to drastically change Nel’s hairstyle because it is old-fashioned.
The reality is that I sit (on a very high, uncomfortable chair) in a live studio in Randburg. I don’t venture into the High Court in Pretoria. I watch it on TV, just like everybody else. It looks really glam, but there is nothing glam about getting up at 3.30am every weekday.
I’ve been anchoring the sixhour Morning Show since day one, six weeks ago. Four weeks before that was spent on research, drawing up mind-maps and covering the walls of my office ( CSI- style) with pictures of everybody involved so that I could recognise and understand their various roles.
That was the easy part. The tough part was attempting to understand our legal system so that I didn’t come off as an idiot.
Couple this with the “magic” of live television (no space for mistakes), my heart stopping every time somebody asks for an adjournment and learning to live with less than five hours sleep a night, it would be safe to say that I swooned at the thought of the Easter weekend.
I’m not alone. There are more than 100 people who work on the channel and thousands more who are covering the case internationally.
In Randburg on Thursday, we all wore that “last day of school” look on our faces.
My moaning aside, the live broadcast of this trial has made us all more aware of and knowledgeable about how our justice system works.
It speaks to the principle of “open justice,” whereby justice is not only done, but also seen to be done.
And, in the absence of a school curriculum that includes the basic principles of law, Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo’s ruling to allow television cameras in court must not be underestimated.
But let’s not fool ourselves. My experience proves that this trial is not a true indication of how other cases are handled (be it in high courts or magistrate’s courts) across South Africa.
Incessant delays, adjournments and postponements (they all have different definitions) are often blamed on a system that is overburdened and reliant on weak police investigations.
The police say their resources are strained as a result of losing experienced officers to a higherpaying private sector — and the disease of bribery.
So, although the Pistorius trial may paint a picture of efficiency, it is not a true reflection of what is happening.
The trial is the standard to which we need to aspire. And don’t tell me it’s not possible, because it clearly is. The entire world watches it on television as it unfolds every day. The proof is already there. Now make a plan for those who are not famous.
Devi’s e-mail address is devi.sankaree@intekom.co.za Twitter handle: @Devi_SG The Oscar Pistorius Trial Channel will resume on May 5