- Applicant sought access to a 17-year-old Speak Out episode and related records under PAIA.
- He said the programme falsely portrayed him as a fraudster and damaged his reputation despite later court rulings in his favour.
- The High Court in Johannesburg struck the urgent application from the roll but said the matter may proceed through the ordinary legal process.
Nearly 17 years after an episode of the SABC’s investigative programme Speak Out was broadcast, a man has failed in an urgent bid to force the public broadcaster to release a copy of the programme and related records.
Marothi Josias Mashashane had claimed that the broadcast falsely portrayed him as a fraudster and caused lasting damage to his reputation.
Mashashane approached the High Court in Johannesburg seeking access to Speak Out, Season 3, Episode 25, together with a transcript of the allegations made against him, confirmation of every date and time the programme was broadcast and verified audience figures.
He said the material was needed to quantify damages after subsequent court proceedings vindicated him. He also sought an order declaring the SABC’s refusal to disclose the records unlawful.
Broadcast at the centre of the dispute
According to the judgment, the programme aired in 2009 and portrayed Mashashane as a fraudster in connection with allegations involving taxi vehicle transactions.
He argued that he was later acquitted in criminal proceedings and subsequently obtained court orders declaring aspects of his arrests and detention unlawful. He maintained that access to the programme and related records was necessary to pursue compensation for the reputational harm he says flowed from the broadcast.
Justice SM Wentzel-Thompson recognised the significance of the request. “I accept that the applicant seeks access to material which, on his version, concerns serious allegations made about him in a public broadcast and which he says may bear upon his dignity, reputation and contemplated damages claim.”
The judgment records that Mashashane had been trying to obtain the episode since at least December 2025 before submitting a formal request under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA).
SABC relied on PAIA exemptions
The SABC refused the request, relying on provisions of PAIA. According to the broadcaster, disclosure could prejudice it because the programme might be used in litigation against the corporation. It also relied on provisions relating to ownership of the programme.
The court, however, questioned aspects of the broadcaster’s reasoning. Justice Wentzel-Thompson said, “PAIA would be seriously undermined if a public body could refuse access merely because the record may be found or assist a claim against that body.”
The judge also observed that copyright ownership and a statutory right of access under PAIA are separate legal questions, suggesting that ownership alone does not automatically justify refusing access.
Application found not to be urgent
Although the court expressed reservations about parts of the SABC’s refusal, it found that Mashashane had not demonstrated why the matter required urgent intervention.
Justice Wentzel-Thompson noted that the programme had been broadcast about 17 years ago and that the applicant had known of both the broadcast and the alleged reputational harm for many years.
The judge said, “The programme was aired in 2009, some 17 years before the present application. The applicant has known of the broadcast for many years.”
The court found there was no evidence that the records were at risk of being destroyed or that Mashashane would suffer irreparable prejudice if the matter proceeded in the ordinary course.
The judgment also found that the applicant had not exhausted the procedures available under PAIA before approaching the High Court and that ordinary litigation mechanisms remained available if the records were required for pending proceedings.
Order
The High Court struck the application from the urgent roll for lack of urgency. The court ruled that Mashashane is not precluded from enrolling the application in the ordinary course, provided he complies with PAIA and the Uniform Rules of Court.
No order as to costs was made.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
