Authored By: Promise Noxolo Mthiyane
University of South Africa
Introduction
On 26 October 2014, Bafana Bafana captain and Orlando Pirates goalkeeper Senzo Meyiwa was shot and killed during an alleged house robbery in Vosloorus.¹ For nearly nine years the investigation stalled, and public frustration grew. In April 2023 the trial of five accused men began in the Pretoria High Court, and for the first time in South African history, a murder trial of this magnitude was broadcast live, with video and audio streamed to millions.²
The decision to broadcast the Meyiwa trial brought to the fore a fundamental constitutional tension. Section 16 of the Constitution protects freedom of expression and media freedom.³ Section 34 entrenches the principle of open justice.⁴ Yet Section 35 guarantees every accused person the right to a fair trial.⁵ The live broadcast of witness testimony, cross-examination, and evidentiary rulings raises the question: can open justice and media access coexist with an accused’s right to be presumed innocent and to receive an untainted trial?
This article argues that while the broadcasting of the Senzo Meyiwa trial advances transparency and public accountability, it simultaneously creates real risks to the integrity of the criminal process, particularly for witnesses and the presumption of innocence. The existing legal framework, found in the Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, and the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, provides insufficient specific guidance for managing high-profile trials in the digital age.
This article proceeds as follows. Section II sets out the existing constitutional and statutory framework governing fair trial rights and media access. Section III analyses the specific challenges posed by the Meyiwa trial. Section IV examines relevant South African jurisprudence on open justice. Section V considers comparative approaches. Section VI proposes a framework for regulating the broadcasting of criminal trials in South Africa.
The Existing Legal Framework
Constitutional Rights
The Bill of Rights contains three provisions central to this analysis. Section 35(3) provides that every accused person has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be presumed innocent and to have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay.⁶ Section 16(1) protects freedom of expression, which includes freedom of the press and other media.⁷ Section 34 guarantees that everyone has the right to have any dispute resolved in a court in a public hearing.⁸
The Constitutional Court has held that open justice is a foundational principle.⁹ However, it is not absolute. A court may limit public access where it is necessary in the interests of justice.¹⁰
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
The CPA governs the conduct of criminal trials. It provides for the adducing of evidence, and the protection of witnesses under s 154.¹ Importantly, the CPA does not contain express provisions dealing with the broadcasting of court proceedings. This has left courts to develop practice directives on an ad hoc basis.
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 and Practice Directives
In 2018, the Chief Justice issued directives permitting the broadcasting of court proceedings with the permission of the presiding judge.¹² The judge must consider factors such as the dignity of the court, the rights of the parties, and the interests of justice. In _SABC v NDPP_, the Constitutional Court held that a blanket ban on broadcasting was unconstitutional.¹³ However, it left the balancing to the trial court.
III. The Challenges Posed by the Meyiwa Trial
The Problem of Pre-trial Publicity
Between 2014 and 2023, the Meyiwa case was the subject of extensive media coverage and social media speculation.¹⁴ By the time the trial commenced, the public had been exposed to multiple narratives regarding motive and suspects. This creates a risk that witnesses may be influenced by information that is not led as evidence.¹⁵
The Problem of Live Broadcasting
The trial was broadcast live on television and YouTube.¹⁶ While this promoted transparency, it also exposed witnesses to intimidation and public commentary.¹⁷ Witnesses testifying in real time knew their demeanour was being analysed by the public. This may have a chilling effect on future witnesses in high-profile matters.¹⁸
The Problem of Social Media and Trial by Commentary
Unlike traditional media, social media allows real-time commentary and the dissemination of inadmissible evidence.¹⁹ During the Meyiwa trial, clips of testimony were extracted and circulated with commentary suggesting guilt or innocence.²⁰ This creates a parallel “trial” outside the courtroom that the presiding judge cannot control.
Case Law
South African courts have grappled with balancing open justice and fair trial rights.
In _S v Le Roux_, the SCA emphasized that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, but also that an accused’s right to a fair trial is paramount.²¹
In _SABC v NDPP_, the Constitutional Court declared that a blanket prohibition on broadcasting court proceedings was unconstitutional.² The Court held that courts must conduct a case-by-case balancing exercise.²³
In _S v Zuma_, the court allowed limited broadcasting but imposed restrictions to protect the dignity of the proceedings.²⁴
The Meyiwa trial is the first application of these principles to a lengthy murder trial with multiple vulnerable witnesses.
Comparative Perspectives
The United States
The US has a long tradition of televised trials, exemplified by the OJ Simpson trial.²⁵ Most states permit cameras in courtrooms, subject to judicial discretion. The experience shows that broadcasting can educate the public but can also lead to sensationalism.²⁶
The United Kingdom
The UK historically banned cameras from criminal courts.²⁷ The Courts and Tribunals Act 2007 now permits broadcasting of sentencing remarks, but not the full trial.²⁸ This cautious approach seeks to protect witnesses and the fairness of proceedings.
Lessons for South Africa
The US model prioritizes transparency but risks spectacle. The UK model prioritizes trial integrity but limits public access. South Africa must adopt a middle path that recognizes its constitutional commitment to both open justice and fair trial rights.
Proposals for Reform
The Meyiwa trial shows that legislative reform is necessary.
First, Parliament should amend the Superior Courts Act to provide a statutory framework for broadcasting criminal trials.²⁹
Second, courts should adopt a default rule of delayed broadcast for witness testimony in criminal trials.³⁰
Third, contempt of court provisions should be enforced more robustly in the digital context to prevent misrepresentation of testimony on social media.³¹
VII. Conclusion
The murder of Senzo Meyiwa was a tragedy. The trial that followed became a landmark moment for open justice in South Africa. Broadcasting the proceedings allowed the public to see the law in action.
However, unfettered live broadcasting creates risks to fair trial rights, witness safety, and the dignity of the judicial process.³² The doctrines developed in _SABC v NDPP_ provide a starting point, but they are insufficient for the challenges of social media.³³
The appropriate response is targeted reform: a statutory framework that permits broadcasting as the default, but with judicial discretion to impose delays where necessary to protect the rights in s 35. South Africa can lead by showing that transparency and fairness are not mutually exclusive.
Reference(S):
Table of Cases
_SABC v NDPP_ 2017 2 SACR 203 (CC).
_S v Le Roux_ 2010 1 SACR 1 (SCA).
_S v Zuma_ 2021 ZAKZPHC 20.
Table of Legislation
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
Courts and Tribunals Act 2007 (UK).
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
Bibliography
De Vos P, ‘Open Justice and the Media’ (2018) 135 _South African Law Journal_ 45.
Hoctor S, _South African Criminal Procedure_ (Juta 2022).
Footnote(S):
¹ News24, ‘Senzo Meyiwa Shot Dead’ (News24, 27 October 2014) https://www.news24.com accessed 18 July 2026.
² SABC News, ‘Meyiwa Trial Broadcast Live’ (SABC, 11 April 2023) https://www.sabcnews.com accessed 18 July 2026.
³ Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s 16(1).
⁴ ibid s 34.
⁵ ibid s 35.
⁶ ibid s 35(3).
⁷ ibid s 16(1).
⁸ ibid s 34.
⁹ _SABC v NDPP_ (n 1).
¹⁰ _S v Le Roux_ (n 2).
¹ Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, s 154.
¹² Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
¹³ _SABC v NDPP_ (n 1).
¹⁴ News24, ‘Meyiwa Investigation Timeline’ (News24, 2022) https://www.news24.com accessed 18 July 2026.
¹⁵ P De Vos, ‘Open Justice and the Media’ (2018) 135 _South African Law Journal_ 45, 52.
¹⁶ SABC News (n 2).
¹⁷ De Vos (n 15) 58.
¹⁸ ibid 60.
¹⁹ S Hoctor, _South African Criminal Procedure_ (Juta 2022) 210.
²⁰ Twitter/X commentary during trial, April 2023 – July 2026.
²¹ _S v Le Roux_ (n 2).
²² _SABC v NDPP_ (n 1).
²³ ibid.
²⁴ _S v Zuma_ (n 3).
²⁵ CNN, ‘OJ Simpson Trial Coverage’ (CNN, 1995).
²⁶ ibid.
²⁷ Courts and Tribunals Act 2007 (UK).
²⁸ ibid s 32.
²⁹ Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
³⁰ Proposal based on UK model (n 27).
³¹ Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
³² De Vos (n 15) 65.
³³ _SABC v NDPP_ (n 1).
