00:00The objection to the proposed live-streaming of proceedings censors on Civil Appeal No. C.A.P. 409-2023 involving
00:09Philip Edward Alexander and Michaela Pandey.
00:13President of the Assembly of Southern Lawyers, Syrah Lackan, makes it clear the issue is not about restricting public access
00:20to courts.
00:21She says, quote,
00:22The proceedings remain open to members of the public and the media, and journalists remain free to report on what
00:28takes place in court, end quote.
00:30Instead, she says, quote,
00:31The issue raised is whether broadcasting an entire hearing to an unrestricted online audience should be governed by additional safeguards,
00:40end quote.
00:40One of those concerns is what happens to court footage once it is placed online.
00:46Lackan points to the possibility of mishandling of proceedings.
00:50She says, quote,
00:51Live-stream proceedings could potentially be recorded, edited into shorter clips, combined with captions or commentary, and redistributed across social
01:00media platforms, end quote.
01:02She also draws a distinction between the judiciary recording proceedings for official purposes and broadcasting those proceedings live over the
01:10internet.
01:11Lackan says clear rules should govern issues raised.
01:14She says, quote,
01:16The broader question is whether, if live-streaming is to become a regular feature of the administration of justice, clear
01:23rules should first govern matters, such as notice to parties, the opportunity to object, the selection of cases for broadcast,
01:31and the subsequent use of court footage, end quote.
01:34The court did not immediately determine the objection and adjourned the matter to consider submissions.
01:39The appeal is scheduled to return before the Court of Appeal on December 17th, when the court is expected to
01:45give its decision on the live-streaming issue.
01:48Arvashi Tawari Ruknarain, TV6 News.
