The DA has criticised the use of taxpayers’ money to obtain an interim protection order against journalists on behalf of Mossel Bay magistrate Ezra Morrison.
The State Attorney’s office assisted Morrison in obtaining the interim order in September last year after media criticism of her rulings, which she claimed amounted to harassment. The DA said in a statement Thursday that the order was a violation of the constitutionally enshrined principle of freedom of expression.
Morrison was accused of ignoring early warnings of psychological experts that the then 13-year-old boy, who is now accused of teenager Deveney Nel’s murder, was at high risk of offending again after he was accused of violently raping an 11-year-old girl, and might need professional help.
News24 legal affairs reporter Karyn Maughan criticised Morrison for failing to refer the teenager to the Children's Court after the rape, which could have resulted in him being placed under care.
Morrison has filed a harassment case and opened criminal charges against Maughan and a former News24 editor.
In reply to a question in parliament by DA member of the security and justice committee of the National Council of Provinces Nicholas Gottsel, justice minister Mmaloko Kubayi said the Cape Town state attorney had received an application for representation from the department of justice on behalf of the magistrate, who at the time had already initiated an application for protection order against a certain journalist.
The request was for an appearance in court, as well as the drafting of the necessary affidavits. Given the capacity constraints within the office of the state attorney and as per client’s instructions, counsel was appointed on an urgent basis, Kubayi said.
The main consideration for approving legal representation by the office of the State Attorney, she added, was the fact that the underlying issues were intrinsically linked to Morrison's employment as a magistrate.
Kubayi said the department of justice saw fit to represent Morrison “given the thin line between what will appear to be a professional and personal issue in so far as the underlying issues are concerned, namely, harassment arising from the rulings she made at court, which were not well received and challenged by the journalist, who went public with scathing comments, which attracted death threats and the like against the applicant”.
The DA said in a statement that the state's intervention threatened media freedom by using legal tools to suppress criticism. The DA has referred the matter to the Magistrate's Commission and wants it taken up by the commission's ethics committee.
“Abuse of state legal resources for a personal issue sets a dangerous precedent undermining media freedom,” said the statement by the DA’s justice spokesperson Glynnis Breytenbach and Gottsell.
“In a shocking display of state overreach and misuse of public resources, the department of justice and constitutional development employed an advocate at taxpayers’ expense to assist magistrate Ezra Morrison in securing an interim protection order against journalists — a process usually aimed at assisting victims of domestic violence and harassment,” the statement said.
“This revelation, uncovered in a response to a parliamentary question by the DA raises serious concerns about the government’s willingness to weaponise legal mechanisms to suppress oversight or criticism rather than uphold press freedom.”
Gottsell pointed out in an interview that obtaining a protection order was a simple process that did not require an advocate. Morrison could have initiated herself. She should also have approached the Press Ombud if she had complaints about media coverage.
Morrison’s complaint, the DA said, was a personal matter and not related to the processes provided for in the Protection from Harassment Act.
The DA said it would call on the State Attorney to account to parliament on the “serious misuse of public resources”.
“If public officials can now access state-funded legal teams to suppress unfavourable reporting, then SA’s commitment to media freedom and accountability is in serious jeopardy,” the statement said.
“These actions set a dangerous precedent, blurring the lines between public office, personal grievances, and freedom of the press.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.