Enough with the media's half-baked legal analysis

By Malose S Monene

The editor,

The intellectual slum to which we are daily subjected by our mainstream media has really reached alarming proportions. Nowhere is it more evident than in the way criminal court matters vis-a-vis NPA operations have been reported and commented on. Half truths, lies and gallant displays of acute ignorance about legal matters and the way the NPA operates are so routinely peddled as news, facts and expert opinion that one now often struggles to fathom where exactly this mediocrity intersects with entrenched ideological anti-government and anti-Simelane bigotry and fanaticism.

It is common place to hear and read comments to the effect of a first appearance serial murder accused at a district court having mysteriously not been asked to plead when there clearly is no such expectation from our law. Matters where bail is granted are frequently reported on as if admission to bail is tantamount to acquittal. Editors who have no clue about the contents of a docket before the prosecution, let alone what elements need to be proven to prove a particular offence in court, somehow find it to be their place to castigate the NPA about when to charge, for what offence and how to proceed with criminal matters. Photographs of suspects in rape cases get emblazoned on front pages in complete ignorance of how detrimental to conviction prospects such publication may proof to be. All this in the name of a highly fluid concept of press freedom by people who ironically claim to champion such struggles as “no violence against women and children”. And often there are ill-informed but highly arrogant comments about the legal meanings and impacts of such phrases as enrolled, struck off the roll and withdrawn as recently alluded to in an article by NPA spokesperson Mthunzi Mhaga. The less said about unfortunate and somewhat racially-blinkered media commentaries on more involved legal issues such as section 204 witnesses, section 105 plea bargains and the recent section 174 ruling in the Agliotti case the better. Maybe people should just not comment about that which they obviously know close to nothing about. Or perhaps, they should take some basic law studies and/or attend Adv Menzi Simelane’s talks and lectures where he consistently and brilliantly articulates on any given issue as to the NPA’s mandates and decisions while at the same time laying bare the poverty of ideas of those who are religiously and fanatically opposed to him.

In the recent Jules High School matter, for example, the NPA and Simelane in particular have needlessly and ignorantly been lampooned by the media and so-called analysts over an aspect of our law which should be very basic and easily comprehensible to anyone who dares comment on legal matters. It has been suggested that the NDPP or whoever took the decision to charge the youngsters (Including the girl) was wrong and incompetent for following the spirit and letter of the new Sexual Offences Act.Talk of respect for the rule of law!!

Our highly vocal media ignoramuses have gone on to disingenuously project the diversion process in terms of the Child Justice Act as a novel approach by the magistrate aimed at thwarting NPA prosecutorial malice or fortunately saving the minors from Simelane’s inconsiderate application of the law. A little bit of reading should show that diversions regarding these and other types of cases have long been in practice and at the instance of the very Simelane and other prosecutors and that the enrolment of the Jules High matter and the diversion process are not mutually exclusive. These kinds of matters are put on the roll, that is, minors are charged so that diversion, as one way of dealing with criminal matters, may be considered in court and given a chance. If only our court reporters and editorial writers of such rags as The Sowetan, The Citizen and the likes of Mail & Guardian’s Sergeant at the Bar and e.tv’s Justice Malala could take off their anti-Simelane, anti-government blinkers for a moment and do some reading before rushing to comment then we may all be rescued from this intellectual slum.

One can only hope that our fanatic court media commentators can recognise the folly of redoubling their efforts towards a forgotten goal as George Santayana cautioned, and start by first researching the law before churning out half-cooked legal analysis and opinion to the public.

Malose S Monene is a state advocate in Gauteng. He is writing in his personal capacity.