Defence battles to kick out ‘unethical’ Senzo Meyiwa filmmakers

Read More

The producers of the Netflix documentary into the murder of footballer Senzo Meyiwa have been accused of flouting the sub judice rule by airing the film, which allegedly resulted in the intimidation of witnesses. 

Despite this, Judge Tshifhiwa Maumela rejected the request by the defence team and the state to remove 10/10 Film, which produced the Meyiwa documentary, which seeks to reconstruct and form opinions on guilty persons in the footballer’s killing.

On Monday, at the Pretoria high court, Maumela said he was concerned about some of the alleged unethical tactics employed by the production company, such as recording defence lawyers when they consult with their clients inside the courtroom, but that he had no authority to remove anyone who made a successful media application.  

Maumela, however, did warn the filmmakers, including the rest of the media contingent, to adhere to the “court’s ground rules” on ethics, and should only take visuals or recordings of people testifying or the legal teams in court, and not make anyone else “uncomfortable”. 

In a rare sign of unity since the case began, advocate Dan Teffo, who represents the accused Muzikawukhulelwa Sibiya, Bongani Ntanzi, Mthobisi Ncube and Mthokoziseni Maphisa, his instructing attorney TT Thobane and advocate George Baloyi, the prosecutor, all agreed that the 10/10 Films should be barred from being present in court for the trial. 

Zandile Mshololo, who represents the fifth accused, Fisokuhle Ntuli, did not comment on the removal application. 

Baloyi, arguing on behalf of the state, read from a supreme court of appeals judgement, which promotes media presence in court for the public’s better understanding of trial proceedings. 

“[Media coverage] increases understanding of, and respect for, the judiciary based on the public’s increased ability to observe the daily workings of the courts,” Baloyi said, reading an extract from the ruling. 

But the prosecutor claimed that the production company violated the legal rule – sub judice – that Baloyi said prevented comment of a criminal trial if that would affect the administration of justice. 

“10/10 Films flighted a documentary a few days before the trial started. There is an old sub judice rule that, once proceedings are before the courts, no comment should be aired if that comment will influence [the] witnesses,” Baloyi contended. 

His contentions were supported by Teffo, who said people he intends on calling to testify on his client’s behalf were interviewed and their views broadcasted, saying this had resulted in the “intimidation of my witnesses”. 

“Here, we are dealing with a criminal matter. Let them [film producers] bring an application [to access the trial] in another court. 

“We will attend to them, we are not scared of them, and we will defeat them. But, for now, they must get out of court,” Teffo charged. 

However, advocate Ben Winks, who represents the filmmakers, said the media “constitutional rights that are vested are sought to be wrenched away from my clients”, as a result of the removal application. 

Winks added that there was “nothing wrong” with the public forming their opinion on criminal trials aired by filmmakers or news organisations, saying the removal of the producers would have a ripple effect on other media outlets. 

“There will have to be a gagging order on everybody until the end of the trial [should the removal be granted]…Documentary makers are media houses,” Winks asserted.