http://www.theharbinger.co.za/wordpress/2010/01/25/i-got-married-because-of-a-section-205-subpoena/ Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:35:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 http://www.theharbinger.co.za/wordpress/2010/01/25/i-got-married-because-of-a-section-205-subpoena/#comment-252694 Robert Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:00:04 +0000 http://www.theharbinger.co.za/wordpress/?p=640#comment-252694 Anton, while I agree that the subpoena was ill-advised and that journalists should honour confidentiality of sources, just one point for clarification: The memorandum of understanding between the Justice Minister and Sanef was not to the effect that "that this law would be changed and until then it would be used with circumspection and consultation". It was an interim measure, pending discussion about the possibility of changing the law. Those discussions took place, but last year the Justice Department notified Sanef that the law would not be changed (and the Constitutional Court has also ruled in favour of Section 205). The continued vailidity of the memorandum is, therefore, unclear. My view is that a law change isn't necessary, and that journalists should rely on a constitution-based "just excuse" justification (see http://tinyurl.com/yexq7gy , which can only be established by precedent - so the sooner a Section 205 case goes to court, the better! Anton, while I agree that the subpoena was ill-advised and that journalists should honour confidentiality of sources, just one point for clarification: The memorandum of understanding between the Justice Minister and Sanef was not to the effect that “that this law would be changed and until then it would be used with circumspection and consultation”. It was an interim measure, pending discussion about the possibility of changing the law. Those discussions took place, but last year the Justice Department notified Sanef that the law would not be changed (and the Constitutional Court has also ruled in favour of Section 205). The continued vailidity of the memorandum is, therefore, unclear. My view is that a law change isn’t necessary, and that journalists should rely on a constitution-based “just excuse” justification (see http://tinyurl.com/yexq7gy
, which can only be established by precedent - so the sooner a Section 205 case goes to court, the better!

]]>