South Africa will be celebrating 10 years of democracy soon. The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) - as a constitutional institution established in 1998 - is celebrating five years of excellence.

Yet, despite the times for celebrations, we are confronted with critical issues in respect of the challenges facing the media in a constitutional democracy. The events of the past few months relating to the NPA have sharply brought into focus the role of the media/journalists in building national interests.

In our pursuit for justice and freedom, we have ensured that we carry out our functions in accordance with the principles which have come to define the NPA. In this regard we are dedicated to:

Contributing to reshaping the notion of justice in our new society.

Promoting a human rights culture in our investigation and prosecution processes; as prosecutors in the post-apartheid criminal justice system we are redefining the role of the prosecutor to become "human rights activists" in the criminal justice system.

Upholding the rule of law and preserve what is regarded as the essence of modern-day justice, of "equality before the law".

Striving to have a prosecution service that is responsive to the needs of our new South African society.

Promoting the fair treatment of victims of crime, especially victims of sexual violence.

Although we have had many successes in the majority of high-profile cases, it is the investigation into the arms deal that has marked the biggest test for our democracy. The decision to investigate the deputy president was not an easy one.

I believe that it is for the commitment to our ideals and support for the safeguard and protection of our democracy that the NPA finds itself under attack. We have been able to conduct the investigation and take the decisions without any political interference or interventions.

The decisions were not popular and clearly made some people uncomfortable. Unpopular as the decisions might have been, the decisions per se did not result in a national calamity; the economy is as strong as ever; the financial markets have not been destabilised; foreign investment has not seized and business confidence is at an all-time high. This should clearly be seen as a victory for democracy.

However, what resulted was a systematic disinformation campaign to discredit me and my organisation by those whom we are investigating, thereby diverting the public attention from their criminal conduct. We have acted without fear, favour or prejudice in defence of democracy.

Their strategy was simple: "Throw as much dirt on them as you can, and hope that some of it sticks." This has failed and will continue to fail for it does not matter how deep the truth may be buried, it is never destroyed.

By and large the media has been very objective in publishing the work that we have been doing in fighting crime, thus instilling hope in the victims of crime and the people of our country.

Those in the media who have published not only the devastating effects of crime, but also covered government responses to it, need to be commended.

Unfortunately, there are a few within the media who have been used as the vehicle in the smear campaign to discredit a constitutional institution, designed to protect democracy.

It is in this context that some critical issues arise, namely:

What is the role of the media in building democracy and promoting the rule of law?

Has one of the fundamental tenets of journalism, namely "fairness", been compromised? What about the sacrosanct principle of off-the-record briefing? Has it been breached or compromised?

Are newspapers living up to their "obligation of providing readers with analysis and discourse"?

It is a common view that society looks upon the media as an institution that plays a meaningful and important role in a democratic dispensation by providing information that is true and accurate to a mass audience in a manner that fulfils the public's right to know.

The media, therefore, is challenged to make information available to the public; this challenge enables them to be part of an ongoing initiative to build the country and strengthen its democracy.

This responsibility to protect the very foundations of our democracy also demands the promotion of the rule of law.

However, instead of protecting democracy and promoting the rule of law, the media as an institution can be abused in the hands of those who wish to undermine these very values by misinforming the public and, therefore, not contributing to the right of the public to know.

The manner in which a number of issues relating to the arms investigation were handled, and the conduct of certain journalists and editors, highlight the dangers of abusing press freedom and journalistic privilege in a way that can shake the very foundations of our democracy and undermine the rule of law.

The following disturbing events clearly illustrate the point:

The publishing of the 35 questions that were addressed by the Scorpions to the deputy president resulted in the Scorpions being accused of the leak and vilified in the media under circumstances where the journalist could have set the record straight. The integrity of an institution set up to support democracy was allowed to be attacked.

The deliberate failure of the journalist to comply with the instructions of the editor not to use the information relating to allegations that I was an apartheid spy; instead, and in breach of journalistic ethics, the journalist passed the story to a rival newspaper under circumstances where a number of editors of different newspapers refused to publish the story.

The editor subsequently wrote: "I remain convinced that publication of the story with the information we had at the time would have served interests other than those of the public."

I wish to commend all of those editors for their courage and bravery, in the face of extreme pressure, to refuse to be used in a smear campaign designed to discredit institutions of democracy.

The use by an editor of his own newspaper to publish an article on the discussions of an off-the-record briefing I had with some senior journalists, under circumstances where he was the only one who not only breached the principle of off-the-record briefings, but also grossly distorted what was actually discussed.

It later transpired that in availing his newspaper to be used in the smear campaign, this editor was motivated by a mistaken belief that he was under investigation by the Scorpions.

The issue was made out by the media as a "Zuma/Ngcuka" issue. The reality of the matter, though, is that those who are in trouble with the law will still have to account, even if I were to resign today.

The issues were portrayed in a way that ensured that the newspaper sells, instead of providing information for analysis and discourse.

Building the rule of law is not only the role of government, but the media, more than most other societal institutions, can play a critical role. For the media therefore to play its role in this regard requires objectivity and fairness. It is the lack of this virtue that has been described as "provoking the harshest protests".

An international journalist had this to say about the issue of "fairness": "Fairness is, in many ways, truthfulness. And we may not be able to get to the complete truth all the time, but our work has to be authentic.

"It has to feel true to people. It has to reflect what they see in society to a certain extent in order for them to feel that it's fair."

Another journalist said the following about editors: "The editors are the gatekeepers. And the matter of fairness is a matter, in the end, of personal judgment. It is a matter of conscience.

"And you have to have the courage of your convictions, even if everybody around you is arguing that what we have done is fair. You have to be willing to say, 'I'm the one who has the responsibility for this decision. I do not think that we have gotten there yet. So go back and do it again'."

We need to remind ourselves that we are a society in transition and our responsibility in this regard is to be vigilant of the role we play in safeguarding the institutions that support democracy and ensuring their integrity.

I am a strong proponent of the view that if those of us who are in leadership positions in these institutions of democracy are found compromised, then we must be exposed.

But equally, we must protect these institutions from those who, for narrow and dishonest reasons, seek to undermine these institutions. We must expose them.

It is the responsibility of the media to ensure that the work of institutions such as the NPA continues long after Bulelani Ngcuka is gone; that is the responsibility of all freedom-loving people, including journalists.

I know that now I am treading on dangerous territory, where I am unlikely to find any support from this audience.

Interestingly, the journalist who wrote the series of articles and conducted radio interviews on various allegations against me is now refusing to co-operate and convey the story to a legitimate forum that has been established to get to the bottom of the issues.

If it was in the public interest that the story be published at the time, surely it should also be in the public interest for the commission established to probe the allegations to expect co-operation from the journalist, and refusal to co-operate with the commission has attracted wide criticism from a number of respected journalists.

A leading senior academic said: "Journalists are also citizens with standard obligations to assist where they can in legal proceedings. These have to be balanced against the demands of their profession and threats to media freedom, but it is dangerous for journalists to claim total immunity from normal social and legal obligations unless they have good reason for it."

Finally, I wish to add that no-one can deny that the media should serve as public watchdog to, in the words of our courts, "ferret out corruption, dishonesty and graft wherever it may occur and to expose the perpetrators".

But this must be done within the parameters of objectivity and fairness. No journalist should be allowed to cross the line.

On the whole, the overwhelming majority of our journalists have lived up to these ideals.

I am very proud of them. I can safely say that our country has a rosy future.

But we must remember that there is no rose without thorns.

With acknowledgements to Bulelani Ngcuka and the Cape Times.