Three media houses are now free to publish a memorandum containing legal advice to the South African Airways about a dispute with aircraft manufacturer Airbus.
This after the Johannesburg High Court yesterday set aside an interim order SAA obtained last month, prohibiting BDFM Publishers (the publishers of Business Day), Moneyweb and Media24 from publishing the information.
The national carrier obtained the interim interdict in the early hours of November 24, claiming that the leaked document contained privileged information.
The memorandum was written on November 5 by Ursula Fikelepi, the SAA’s general manager: legal, risk and compliance, and dealt with the implications of correspondence from Airbus, asking SAA to make certain payments in terms of the contract for the purchase of Airbus aircraft.
The gag order came too late for Business Day, which had already published a story based on the legal opinion on the morning of November 24.
SAA asked the court last week to confirm the interdict.
But yesterday Judge Roland Sutherland slammed SAA’s conduct, describing the way in which it had notified the media houses of its planned interdict application as a “farce”.
He said it was not a case where only one party could appear before the court.
“Doubtless, SAA appreciated this obvious fact that service was necessary.
“However, what it and its legal representatives did pursuant to a responsibility to achieve effective service in order to respect the principle of audi alterem partem , was not simply clumsy but unprofessional.”
Sutherland found that the time at which the SAA e-mailed its application to the media houses was “unreasonable”. He said after deciding to bring an urgent application, SAA should have contacted the other parties to demand compliance with the relief sought and inform them about where the application was likely to be heard.
“Sufficient time must be allowed for the respondents to read and digest the papers.”
Sutherland found that it was futile to try to protect information that had already been published, and also questioned whether it was in the public interest to prevent publication of the information.
“The question arises whether in the public interest further suppression of the information should be allowed. I am of the view that it not,” Sutherland said.
“The controversy about SAA and its dependence on taxpayer funds seems to me to be a demonstrably obvious topic about which every citizen has a tangible interest to be informed. If the constitutional promise of transparency in public administration is to mean anything, then awareness of what public bodies do with the nation’s money is a low threshold to demand.”
Moneyweb editor Ryk van Niekerk said: “It shows that SAA were very sneaky in the way they tried to gag the media. The document is in the public interest and shows there are serious financial problems at SAA and if the amended airbus deal , it would have forced SAA into business rescue or liquidation.” — jordaann@timesmedia.co.za
SAA fails in bid to keep document secret
This after the Johannesburg High Court yesterday set aside an interim order SAA obtained last month, prohibiting BDFM Publishers (the publishers of Business Day), Moneyweb and Media24 from publishing the information.
The national carrier obtained the interim interdict in the early hours of November 24, claiming that the leaked document contained privileged information.
The memorandum was written on November 5 by Ursula Fikelepi, the SAA’s general manager: legal, risk and compliance, and dealt with the implications of correspondence from Airbus, asking SAA to make certain payments in terms of the contract for the purchase of Airbus aircraft.
The gag order came too late for Business Day, which had already published a story based on the legal opinion on the morning of November 24.
SAA asked the court last week to confirm the interdict.
But yesterday Judge Roland Sutherland slammed SAA’s conduct, describing the way in which it had notified the media houses of its planned interdict application as a “farce”.
He said it was not a case where only one party could appear before the court.
“Doubtless, SAA appreciated this obvious fact that service was necessary.
“However, what it and its legal representatives did pursuant to a responsibility to achieve effective service in order to respect the principle of audi alterem partem , was not simply clumsy but unprofessional.”
Sutherland found that the time at which the SAA e-mailed its application to the media houses was “unreasonable”. He said after deciding to bring an urgent application, SAA should have contacted the other parties to demand compliance with the relief sought and inform them about where the application was likely to be heard.
“Sufficient time must be allowed for the respondents to read and digest the papers.”
Sutherland found that it was futile to try to protect information that had already been published, and also questioned whether it was in the public interest to prevent publication of the information.
“The question arises whether in the public interest further suppression of the information should be allowed. I am of the view that it not,” Sutherland said.
“The controversy about SAA and its dependence on taxpayer funds seems to me to be a demonstrably obvious topic about which every citizen has a tangible interest to be informed. If the constitutional promise of transparency in public administration is to mean anything, then awareness of what public bodies do with the nation’s money is a low threshold to demand.”
Moneyweb editor Ryk van Niekerk said: “It shows that SAA were very sneaky in the way they tried to gag the media. The document is in the public interest and shows there are serious financial problems at SAA and if the amended airbus deal , it would have forced SAA into business rescue or liquidation.” — jordaann@timesmedia.co.za
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos