City Press this week won an important victory for the freedom of the Press in South Africa under the new Constitution when the highest court in the land overturned a law which made the media liable in a defamation action, even if all the proper steps had been taken to verify information.

During the past 16 years the media's right to freedom of speech had been treated differently to that of a member of the public.

In regard to a member of the public, deliberate libel had to be proved by the complainant, but with regard to the media a complainant only had to prove ``negligence''.

This meant that journalists were automatically held responsible for wrong information, forcing them to prove the truth of their information even if they had taken all reasonable steps to verify the information.

The most notorious case in point was that of General Lothar Neethling's case against the Vrye Weekblad, in which the newspaper was ordered to pay Neethling more than a million rand which effectively killed the newspaper Vrye Weekblad.

Had the action been brought after the City Press test case the judgment would likely have gone the other way.

The City Press judgment means the original judgment delivered in a 1982 test case by the Appeal Court has been overturned.

City Press Editor-In-Chief Khulu Sibiya, commenting on the long battle to win the test case, said``City Press did not gain a victory for itself, but for the whole South African media.''

City Press had been sued by attorney Nthedi Bogoshi for publishing articles by Assistant Editor Desmond Blow and Gauteng Editor Elias Maluleke regarding third party claims made by him.

Bogoshi brought nine libel claims for R1,8 million against City Press, its distributers and printers.

Originally City Press and the others based its their defence on the established claims by the media of accuracy and public interest, but then appealed to Judge Frikkie Eloff to that they wished to include another defence that the requirements of pure negligence in defamation actions against the media were unconstitutional. Eloff refused to allow the defence.

The matter was then taken to the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein.

The judgment puts South Africa in the class of other democratic nations like Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and western European countries.

In the judgment delivered by Judge Joos Hefer and supported by four other Appeal judges, he said they overruled the 1982 judgment as ``it was clearly wrong''.

The judgment said ``If upon consideration of all the circumstances in the case it is found to be reasonable to publish the particular facts in the particular way and at the particular time it would not be regarded as unlawful.''

Judge Hefer said the law of defamation regarding the Press did not achieve a proper balance between the right to protect one's reputation and the freedom of the Press.

But the onus should be on the Press to justify relating to justification of the publication publishing articles.

Judge Hefer said that in addition to this new defence, journalists could escape liability by showing that they were not negligent in publishing information even if it turned out to be incorrect.

``We must not forget that it is the right and indeed a vital function of the press to make available to the community information and criticism about every aspect of public, political, social and economic activity and thus to contribute to the formation of public opinion,'' the judge said.

Media lawyers welcomed the judgment as a watershed in South African media law which had been brought in line with jurisdictions that were more sensitive to the importance of press freedom.

Advocate Schalk Burger, instructed by Hofmeyrs, appeared for City Press.

Sub please leave this para in :

The judgment means irresponsible and incompetent journalists will still be held liable for false, defamatory material, but that journalists who can show they were not negligent in publishing such material can escape liability.

With acknowledgement to City Press.