South African journalist Sam Sole on landmark court victory: “2008 surveillance was the tip of the iceberg”
By Angela Quintal/CPJ Africa Program Coordinator
South Africa journalist Sam Sole, of the amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism, spoke to CPJ about the 2008 surveillance he was subjected to and a recent landmark Constitutional Court ruling. (amaBhungane) Listen to article
South Africa’s highest court, the Constitutional Court, handed down a landmark judgment on February 4 that not only protects journalists and their sources from surveillance abuse, but also upheld a lower court’s ruling that the insidious practice of the bulk interception of ordinary citizens’ data and communication is illegal.
On Thursday, 4 February 2021, the Constitutional Court handed down a decision which has already received worldwide acclaim. It found in favour of amaBhungane, the investigative journalism organisation, in a landmark case involving the collision between the right to privacy and the right of the state to engage in surveillance.
The court ruled that the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act (Rica) is unconstitutional in five important respects because it did not provide sufficient safeguards to protect the privacy of citizens. It also confirmed that bulk surveillance is unlawful in South Africa.
The story begins in 2008 when journalist Sam Sole (one of the co-founders of amaBhungane) had some confidential conversations with senior public prosecutor Advocate Billy Downer about the criminal charges then pending against former president Jacob Zuma. Downer was in charge of the prosecution. Sole was doing what investigative jour
New York, February 4, 2021 ndash; In response to the South African Constitutional Court rsquo;s decision today to uphold a 2019 High Court ruling that invalidated legislation allowing for the surveillance of members of the press, the Committee to Protect Journalists issued the following statement: ldquo;Journalist Sam Sole rsquo;s communications should never have been intercepted, but the South African Constitutional Court rsquo;s ruling today, which confirms that laws permittin