Define limits of sub judice
Nov 24, 2005
MINISTER of Information Dr Nsaba Buturo has warned media houses, especially radio stations, not to discuss ongoing court cases. It is important for both government and the media to keep this matter in perspective.
MINISTER of Information Dr Nsaba Buturo has warned media houses, especially radio stations, not to discuss ongoing court cases. It is important for both government and the media to keep this matter in perspective.
The two days of rioting last week after Col Kizza Besigye was arrested were very localised. Three cars were burned and two people died, neither at the hands of the police. The rioting got a lot of international media coverage but we should not exaggerate its extent.
Some radio stations did run inflammatory commentaries during the rioting but they did not cause the capital to erupt in flames. These commentaries may have been irresponsible but they were not disastrous.
Having said that, the minister was correct to point out that the trial of Col Kizza Besigye is subject to the legal rule of sub judice. This states that media houses should not prejudice the course of a trial by publicly expressing opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the suspect.
However there is a large grey area of what constitutes infringement of the sub judice rule. For instance, is it acceptable to publicly argue that taking Besigye to both the Court Martial and the High Court would constitute double jeopardy? Is it acceptable to publicly comment that the deployment of soldiers within the High Court undermined the credibility of the State in its handling of the Besigye case?
Where are the boundaries of what can and cannot be said? One clearly cannot ban all discussion of the Besigye trial, so what aspects of debate would prejudice the course of the trial?
It is actually the judiciary that should determine the application of the sub judice rule. Government should forward to the Registrar of the High Court the relevant media recordings for his consideration, and the High Court can then issue more specific guidelines on how the Besigye case should be reported by the media. Ends
The two days of rioting last week after Col Kizza Besigye was arrested were very localised. Three cars were burned and two people died, neither at the hands of the police. The rioting got a lot of international media coverage but we should not exaggerate its extent.
Some radio stations did run inflammatory commentaries during the rioting but they did not cause the capital to erupt in flames. These commentaries may have been irresponsible but they were not disastrous.
Having said that, the minister was correct to point out that the trial of Col Kizza Besigye is subject to the legal rule of sub judice. This states that media houses should not prejudice the course of a trial by publicly expressing opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the suspect.
However there is a large grey area of what constitutes infringement of the sub judice rule. For instance, is it acceptable to publicly argue that taking Besigye to both the Court Martial and the High Court would constitute double jeopardy? Is it acceptable to publicly comment that the deployment of soldiers within the High Court undermined the credibility of the State in its handling of the Besigye case?
Where are the boundaries of what can and cannot be said? One clearly cannot ban all discussion of the Besigye trial, so what aspects of debate would prejudice the course of the trial?
It is actually the judiciary that should determine the application of the sub judice rule. Government should forward to the Registrar of the High Court the relevant media recordings for his consideration, and the High Court can then issue more specific guidelines on how the Besigye case should be reported by the media. Ends