Justice Minister Brigitte Mabandla says she will consult the judiciary and other institutions on whether the common law sub judice rule should be reviewed.

She was replying in writing to a parliamentary question from Steve Swart (ACDP), who wanted to know whether Mabandla would refer the matter to the SA Law Reform Commission.

He said this should be done in light of the debate about reporting on highly publicised criminal cases and the view that the common law sub judice rule was outdated, toothless and limited the right to free expression.

An offence against the sub judice rule, when matters are "before the court", refers mainly to the crime of contempt of court: that which is not in the interest of the better administration of justice.

The issue has been in the spotlight recently in relation to the corruption trial of Schabir Shaik, and also the trial of Donovan Moodley, accused of murdering Leigh Matthews.

Mabandla said the sub judice rule had been placed under tremendous pressure, especially over the last few months.

"It is not unexpected, since we have not only moved into a constitutional dispensation where freedom of expression is eminent, the media has also acquired a much more prominent role in the reporting of court cases."

The country's courts had also become more sympathetic in allowing the media to broadcast proceedings in court.

There was more than one option available, Mabandla said.

"One may leave the position as it is and allow the courts themselves to develop the sub judice concept to adapt to circumstances and requirements of our time, or one may ... actively review the legal position around the sub judice rule and provide the government with recommendations."

Swart said while his party acknowledged that the sub judice rule had an important role to play in preventing witnesses from being intimidated, the rule unjustifiably limited free expression both for the media and MPs.

With acknowledgements to Angela Quintal and the Cape Times.