Media challenge secrecy around Dlomo trial

The Campaign for Free Expression (CFE) and three media organisations have filed an urgent application to open the criminal trial of former State Security Agency (SSA) officials Thulani Dlomo and Patrick Mshotholo to public scrutiny.

According to a CFE statement, the applicants are seeking to vary a Pretoria High Court order restricting access to witness testimony, documents and the record of proceedings. Media24, amaBhungane and Daily Maverick have joined the application.

The trial concerns the alleged misappropriation of R12 million in SSA funds. CFE says the three trial days completed so far have taken place in secrecy, with the media and public excluded.

Dlomo, widely described as former president Jacob Zuma’s spy, featured prominently in the Zondo Commission and High-Level Review Panel reports concerning the alleged use of the intelligence agency to serve factional political interests. He has also faced public allegations of involvement in instigating the July 2021 unrest. Those allegations are separate from the charges described in the current proceedings.

CFE characterises the prosecution as the State’s first attempt to hold senior SSA members criminally accountable for the alleged looting of intelligence resources during Zuma’s presidency.

“Open justice is essential to the accountability and legitimacy of our criminal justice system. Its authority rests in significant part on the transparency of its processes – processes the public is able to observe, understand, question and criticise,” said CFE executive director Nicole Fritz.

The applicants contend that the order, delivered on 15 October, is excessively broad and has, in practice, resulted in a blanket exclusion of journalists and the public.

They argue that public access is particularly important in a prosecution involving allegations of abuse of public money and power by senior intelligence officials.

“The public has waited years for accountability for abuses within the intelligence service. It is entitled to see precisely what case the state brings, what the evidence establishes, how the defence responds and how the court reaches its conclusions,” Fritz said.

CFE cited the Constitutional Court’s emphasis on accountability, responsiveness and openness in the functioning of the judiciary, alongside the obligation to ensure fair proceedings.

The applicants accept that legitimate national security concerns and witness safety may justify restrictions in some circumstances. However, they maintain that any exceptions to open justice must be narrowly drawn and properly justified.