The case of Mazetti vs. Amabhungane involved an ongoing dispute between Mazetti Management Services (Pty) Ltd, the applicant, and a group of investigative journalists. On June 1, 2023, a confidential hearing took place, during which Mazetti Management Services and their affiliate company, Ammetti Holdings (Pty) Ltd, were granted an ex parte interdict.
This judgement prohibited the amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism and its members from publishing any reports based on electronic documents that were allegedly stolen from Mazetti Management Services by a former employee and were now in the possession of amaBhungane. The interdict was issued as a temporary measure, pending a final order that demanded the return of the electronic documents within 48 hours.
Allegations arose that a former employee of the corporation had leaked confidential digital documents to journalists, which subsequently served as the basis for a series of articles about Mazetti. When approached for a response, Mazetti tried to dissuade the journalists from publishing the articles and requested the return of the leaked documents.
However, the journalists declined, citing the need to protect their source's anonymity. Consequently, Mazetti sought urgent legal action and obtained an ex parte order to reclaim the documents as well as an interdict to prevent further publication. The court granted these requests during a closed-door hearing on June 1.
When the case came up for reconsideration, this time with both parties involved, Roland Sutherland J. was tasked with determining whether to uphold the ex parte order and how to address Mazetti’s application.
Regarding the first issue, Sutherland J. ruled to set aside the ex parte order, stating that it had been granted without giving the respondents a chance to be heard, which lacked a proper basis. Turning to the second issue, Sutherland J. made noteworthy observations. He notably rejected Mazetti's contention that the journalists became accomplices to theft by retaining "stolen" documents. He explained that in such cases, there is no "crime of possession" because the possession of such information by journalists serves the undeniable public good, as they hold "contraband information."
Sutherland J. emphasized that protecting sources is not merely optional but rather a functional necessity integral to the process of investigative journalism. He supported this standpoint by referring to South African case law and international legal instruments (paragraphs 26 – 32), concluding that source protection is intrinsically inherent to the exercise of the right to free speech by journalists.
Sutherland J.'s judgment serves as an impressive illustration of how courts can uphold the constitutional right to free speech, acting as a potent safeguard against potential abuses of power by individuals or entities, particularly in the context of investigative journalism and the broader pursuit of a more transparent and open public sphere.
Comments