THE latest state witness in the Senzo Meyiwa murder trial has lost her bid to bar the audio broadcast of her testimony.
The presiding judge in the matter, Justice Tshifhiwa Maumela ruled in favour of the media.
This after the state witness made an application in the North Gauteng High Court on Monday, 15 May to ban the media from broadcasting her testimony citing security reasons.
When delivering his ruling, Maumela said the court must take the public interest into account in this case.
He said the rights of witness number one are pitted against the rights of all others involved in this case and the court must maintain balance between the observance of freedom of press and the rights of an individual or even an accused person.
“The court has to harmonise the right of freedom of expression and the open justice principle and the right to a fair trial. The position by members of the media proves to be weightier,” he said.
ALSO READ: HERO: Brave woman DISARMS tsotsis!
Maumela noted that there are parties who have an interest in this case but cannot make it to the court room.
"It is for that reason that efforts ought to be done towards imposing lesser rather than greater restrictions. Such restrictions are bound to eat away at the credibility of our criminal justice system,” he said.
He said forbidding the broadcast of the witness' voice will not be of any benefit and there is no demand to beam her face.
The judge said the witness complained about security concerns and asked the court to ban the live broadcast, but the principle of openness will be adhered to by the court, unless there is good reason to deviate from that.
“The witness has participated on social media on this case. In so doing she placed her face out there which prompted public scrutiny in which she now claims to be harboring apprehension,” he said.
On the other hand, Maumela said the court has to consider that there is cause to consider that witness have a form of assurance that they will live to testify on another day.
“Like any citizen, witness one has an equal right to be heard before any court of law. It will not be correct to fault her for having made a request in the way that she did. It became wise of her to communicate,” he said.
