In a case seen as critical for all journalists, the definition of media freedom was heavily disputed yesterday in arguments in the Bloemfontein High Court.

Judge president J.P. Malherbe and Judge D.J. Lombard were hearing an urgent application by journalist Ranjeni Munusamy to set aside an order forcing her to testify before the Hefer Commission. Judge Joos Hefer said Munusamy had the right to object to certain questions.

Alternatively, Munusamy asked for a ruling that she be called to the stand only after all other avenues of investigation had been exhausted.

Advocate Gilbert Marcus SC, supporting Munusamy's application, contended that its outcome will impact on all journalists and their constitutional right not to disclose confidential sources.

Marcus was representing the SA National Editors' Forum, the Freedom of Expression Institute and the South African chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa.

Marcus said journalists do not enjoy blanket immunity from revealing their sources in an inquiry. However, if they are compelled to do so, it must only be as a last resort.

The appropriate legal test will be to determine whether the information is highly material, relevant, crucial and unobtainable from other sources, Marcus argued.

Advocate John Campbell, for Munusamy, argued that media freedom consists primarily of journalists' constitutional protection against the disclosure of sources. This forms part of the basic right of freedom of expression.

However, if journalists have to be forced to identify sources, the compulsion must be in such a way that this right is least infringed. From this flows the "rule" that journalists should be called "last and least", meaning after all other possible sources have been tried without success.

Advocate Schalk Burger, for the commission, denied that media freedom is even an issue in the case.

Hefer's ruling does not force Munusamy to disclose confidential sources. Therefore it does not threaten the constitutional right to freedom of expression in any way, Burger argued. He called her application premature, arguing that she could appeal later if unsatisfied with Hefer's ruling on her objection to a question.

In an apparent attack on Munusamy, Willem van der Linde SC, for Ngcuka, argued that "press freedom does not require protection of people who come up with 15-year-old stories aimed at sowing division".

Campbell called these contentions fundamentally flawed and completely wrong.

With acknowledgements to Sapa and The Natal Witness.