"Audio & visual recording of court pro-ceedings vital"

Court of Appeal Judge, Isaac Lesetedi has said that courts ought to accept that allowing audio and visual recording in courts by the media may actually enhance its image in the public eye.

Lesetedi stated that if properly managed this would enhance the judiciary’s image and allow the ordinary member of community to observe first-hand how the courts work and to make his or her own independent value judgement.

Lesetedi said this when delivering a judgement in a case in which Gabz FM radio station had appealed a High Court ruling denying the radio station permission to broadcast live, the trial and judgement of a case in which Law Society of Botswana was challenging President Ian Khama’s refusal to appoint Omphemetse Motumise as high court judge.

“In a number of jurisdictions, both audio and visual recordings of court proceedings are permitted in circumstances where such recordings do not disrupt or compromise the judicial process. South Africa, United Kingdom and Canada are some of the examples. In the United States, the only exception seems to be the Supreme Court”, he explained.

Lesetedi said in his view, that kind of engagement with a view to ensuring the promotion of transparency of judicial proceedings and accessibility to the wider community through audio and visual recording may also compensate for sometimes-imperfect reports of court proceedings that are conveyed through print media.

He stated that audio and video recording, if practical, may also “have the advantage of reflecting the proceedings more accurately than print media”. He encouraged the media and other stakeholders to approach the chief justice as the rightful authority as head of judiciary to discuss the broad policy guidelines upon which any media may record and broadcast court proceedings and the mechanism which may be put in place for protection of those who appear in the courts.

The appeals court has however dismissed the appeal by Gabz FM. The bench of three judges who heard the appeal stated that the radio station failed to show that the high court improperly exercised its discretion in refusing it permission to record the proceedings in the Law Society of Botswana case.

The court found that the appellant failed and or neglected to provide specifications of the equipment to be used in court so that the court could advise itself on the allocation of space within the courtroom.