Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, the journalists chiefly responsible for uncovering the Watergate scandal that toppled former US president Richard Nixon, wrote in their book, All the President's Men, that a journalist who had done an interview with one of the heavies of Watergate was summoned to court by John Sirica, the judge in the case.

Sirica demanded that the journalist hand over tapes of the interview, as they would assist in the prosecution of those responsible for the Watergate break-in. The journalist declined because he had given a guarantee that the tapes would remain confidential. He was summarily imprisoned for contempt of court.

It was close to Christmas and he was not allowed to greet his family and was marched to the cells. He defended his sources, went to prison and was released only when the source gave permission for the tapes to be handed to the court.

Yesterday, the Hefer commission into allegations that National Director of Public Prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka was an apartheid spy focused on this matter. Judge Joos Hefer explained why he believed former Sunday Times journalist Ranjeni Munusamy should testify to the commission. Munusamy, who wrote the original story claiming Ngcuka was a spy, is contesting Hefer's order that she testify by appealing to the high court.

Many media experts argue journalists should not be compelled to testify at court hearings because it would harm public trust in them. If a journalist is seen to be co-operating with the state in a legal matter, the public will be reluctant to share information with any journalist again.

This is probably true. But it is not the state's function to make journalists exempt from the law; exempt from duties imposed on the very public they wish to inform. Those who would insist journalists should not be summoned to testify would, however, argue that any citizen with relevant data about crime and other matters of public interest (such as accusations against a senior public servant) should be asked to deliver that information in an appropriate forum a court or commission.

Particularly in a country like SA where we are struggling to reassert the rule of law in a postapartheid era.

What, for example, would the position be of a journalist invited to meet sources on a corruption story and in the process a murder is committed?

Would the state be obliged to understand that a journalist has unique standing and despite the fact he or she has information that would secure a conviction we cannot demand that it be provided? Would the journalist be able to sustain the position that state responsibility to enforce the law should not include journalists?

The point is that if a journalist publishes a hot story on the basis of anonymous sources and the state, in the legitimate pursuit of justice, needs answers, then the journalist has only one option.

Like the Watergate journalist face the music and the wrath of the judiciary. Of course the sources must be defended. Of course the journalist cannot disclose sources. So, the journalist, to preserve that vital relationship of trust with the public he or she serves, will have to go to prison.

The responsibility to do this is the journalist's alone and the arguments for or against special treatment fall away. Quite simple really.

Hartley is parliamentary editor.

With acknowledgements to Hartley and the Business Day.