Restrictions on local businesses are unconstitutional

Interdicts by business owners feeling aggrieved because their constitutional rights have been infringed upon by the international governing body of world soccer Fifa, during the 2010 Soccer World Cup, could become more frequent as South Africa approaches this iconic tournament within the next four months. This is the warning from Professor Marinus Wiechers, former rector of Unisa and adviser in the drafting of the Namibian and South African constitutions.

He has warned that no one has the constitutional right to close down shops or businesses in the vicinity of World Cup stadiums simply because it would limit the trading capabilities of Fifa.

Fifa, the international governing body of world soccer, has no statutory right in South Africa and cannot infringe on the rights of businesses to trade freely, as these rights by local businesses are enshrined in the South African Constitution.

He has warned that any attempts to close down businesses without engaging with business owners in any sort of deal, or compensate for their potential losses during the time in which they are shut down, is in direct violation of the Constitution.

That is because Fifa is no government institution, insisted Prof. Wiechers.

He has warned that business owners in South Africa could revert to interdicts or other legal recourses against Fifa if the Soccer World Cup infringes on their business rights.

Similarly, Fifa could cut a deal with other sporting codes not to play representative matches in close proximity of World Cup stadiums, but to be prescriptive or enforce its rights on other sporting codes is in direct violation of the Constitution.

Prof. Wiechers’ views, expressed in an interview with "Leadership Intelligence Bulletin" comes at a time in which a row is simmering between South African editors and Fifa over what the editors claim are outrageous infringements on the constitutional right to freedom of expression.

The South African Media interest group, comprising members of the South African National Editors' Forum (Sanef) and industry body Print Media South Africa, is unhappy about a draft of Fifa requirements for journalists who apply for accreditation to cover the tournament. Certain restrictions seem to be completely out of touch with the latest technologically driven developments of interaction between various media platforms in the industry.

Among the main areas of contention are:

Newspapers will not be able to push pictures onto their mobile platforms (they can, however, push text);

There are restrictions on newspapers doing video packages for their websites;

Reporters will not be able to report on the names of hotels in which the teams are residing;

No newspapers will be able to sell papers within the restricted zone around stadiums, which has a radius of about 800 metres;

Although Fifa commits itself to guaranteeing freedom of expression, there is also a clause stating that news organisations may not bring Fifa into disrepute; and

Many of the terms and conditions apply to reporters and photographers and their "organisations" (suggesting restrictions on other colleagues, some of whom will not be covering the World Cup) rather than "employer" (i.e. their editors).

Fifa's Zurich-based media head Pekka Odriozola said that the requirements have applied to previous World Cups.

He added that Fifa respects freedom of expression, that its intentions are good and that it has dealt with and explained its position further in writing to Sanef to iron out misunderstandings.

But the SA Media interest group’s point man dealing with Fifa, former "Rand Daily Mail" editor Raymond Louw, says the written clarifications are not satisfactory.

The seriousness of the issue demands that they sit down formally with Fifa and deal with the contentious issues, clause by clause, rather than in broad discussions as has occurred in the past.

Thabo Leshilo, head of Sanef's media freedom committee, said: "It's outrageous what Fifa is used to getting away with. The tragedy, though, is the virtual absence of outrage by local media and editors on the violation of freedom of the press on such a scale.”

The local media simply has lost the will to fight and is simply going along, as long as it can cover the event. It is not too late to catch a wake-up, though.

Why would a reporter want to reveal the name of a team's hotel?

Well, imagine team members getting drunk and into a barney with South African fans in the bar.

Imagine a team member having a party of prostitutes in his hotel room.

Or, it could be a good news story: a team member is touched by the plight of a poor hotel cleaner, makes friends with her and promises to help put her children through school.

You cannot write a hard news story without the hotel's name and comment from the manager, as it simply will not be believable to readers. If there is no "when, WHERE, what, why, how", it appears to be made up.

Odriozola claims the restriction is merely for the security and privacy of the team members and if stories arise, the journalists can obtain permission from the team to name the hotel.

Ja well, no fine. You will certainly not get permission if the team was plastered and broke up the party in the bar. And, as Louw points out, why should we have to? (Source: "Moneyweb")