Parliament no longer allowed to jam signals or censor proceedings

signal-jamming, which blocked the use of cellphones in the National Assembly that night, was illegal.

Sanef described the ruling as a victory for transparency, which meant that if there was disorder in Parliament, the feed it provided to broadcasters should fully reflect what was happening and not focus on the presiding officer’s face.

“The ruling also means the state security apparatus can no longer jam signals at will in Parliament. All these mean that the ability of the media to fully inform the public on issues of public interest is enhanced. Sanef calls on Parliament to immediately implement the ruling,” Sanef said.

After the State Security Agency activated a signal jammer, allegedly for security reasons, it became impossible for the media to report from the National Assembly because all cellphone and internet signals had been blocked.

Following the uproar, Sanef, Media24, the Right2Know campaign, Primedia and the Open Democracy Advice Centre asked the Western Cape High Court to declare a part of Parliament’s broadcasting policy unconstitutional.

The court ruled in May that Parliament may restrict media access to its proceedings and that it had not acted illegally by using the signal blocker.

However, the ruling was not unanimous and leave to appeal was granted.

Yesterday, however, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled against Parliament.

Judge Kate Savage held a different opinion to judges Daniel Dlodlo and Robert Henney, and delivered a judgment that deviated from the high court’s ruling.

Judge Savage found that parts of the Parliament’s broadcasting policy, the way the State of the Nation address was broadcast and the use of a signal jammer were unconstitutional and illegal.

R2K said the judgment was an important victory for transparency and the public’s right to an open Parliament.

“We welcome this judgment as a vindication of the right for ordinary South Africans to have a Parliament that is open and transparent,” the group said.

It said the ruling should act as a warning against future clampdowns in Parliament, which have manifested in heavy-handed new security measures that have made it harder for ordinary people to get access to parliamentary sittings.

R2K added: “The judgment was a resounding endorsement of the principles of openness and transparency which Parliament must strive to uphold and which the State Security Agency and other security structures must respect.”

Alison Tilley from the Open