Saturday Star published an article that identified a child in such a manner that may cause them further harm. The article in question written by Lali Van Zaydum titled “Family of murdered former boxing champion faces his alleged killers” (10/05/2014 p. 2) recounted the child witnesses’ testimony in a court case against her father’s alleged murderers. The child was both named and photographed in the article.
Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) is concerned that in identifying the child, the newspaper contravened Section 154 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977,which says “No person shall publish in any manner whatever any information which reveals or may reveal the identity of an accused under the age of eighteen years or of a witness at criminal proceedings who is under the age of eighteen years: Provided that the presiding judge or judicial officer may authorize the publication of so much of such information as he may deem fit if the publication thereof would in his opinion be just and equitable and in the interest of any particular person.”
MMA noted that the article did not indicate whether or not any form of informed consent had been acquired from the child, parents/guardians let alone the presiding judge or judicial officer as required by the Criminal Procedure Act.
After doing a follow-up on the article, it appears that the journalist did in fact ask for permission. The journalist in question informed MMA that:
“Thanks. I would just like to mention that the child gave me full permission to use both her name and her picture. She was asked by the judge if I should leave the courtroom and she indicated she had no problem with me sitting in, covering her testimony and using her name and picture. Her mother also consented. I take children’s rights very seriously and would not be reckless.”
In our experience, it is not common practice for a judge to allow media to name or identify children in criminal proceedings. Therefore, in light of the information made available to MMA, we reached a conclusion that legally the Saturday Star was not in the wrong, and the journalist should be commended for seeking consent from the parties involved.
However, what is still not clear to us is the value in naming and photographing the child in the story. Whether the same article could have been told without naming and photographing the child? And how being identified in the media serves the child’s best interests?
These are some of the ethical questions that MMA hopes journalists will ask themselves when reporting on children involved in situations similar to this one. Asking such questions will ensure that children are protected from the potential harms that they might be exposed to as a result of being identified.