For many reasons the Sowetan’s front page story “The life Jub Jub ruined” (28/05/10, p. 1, 2) makes MMA mad.  Not only did the article publish personal and embarrassing details about the condition of seventeen year old crash victim, violating his right to dignity, but it also named the child and published photographs of him, despite the fact that he is a witness to a crime. An article alongside on page 2, identified the other survivor of the incident.

The first article was about one of the survivors of a car crash, which has received a lot of media attention, involving hip-hop star Molemo Maarohayne, better known as Jub Jub.  Four students were killed in the crash and two were injured. As a result, Maarohayne and another man, Themba Tshabalala, are facing four charges of murder, two of attempted murder, together with charges for reckless and drunken driving.

By publishing the name of the seventeen year old crash survivor Sowetan breaks the law, contravening Section 154(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, No. 51 of 1977, which states:
“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…”

The article focused on the teenager’s current mental and physical state. This could have been done in a sensitive manner, instead Sowetan opted for catchy headlines (“Crash victim now has mind of 2-year-old” , p. 2) and sensational copy (“…he has wet or soiled himself. He needs disposable nappies”,  p. 2), which failed to acknowledge the child’s right to privacy and self respect. The child’s mother was quoted in the article and conceivably approached Sowetan to let them know of her plight.  However, this in no way excuses Sowetan ignoring the child’s human rights to privacy and dignity.

At the very least the child, his siblings and his mother should have been given pseudonyms to protect their identities, and photographs of the teenager should not have been published.  That the survivor’s name may already have been in the public domain, does not excuse Sowetan  from breaking the law, by identifying a witness to a crime, and ignoring his right to dignity and self respect. Surely a child that has been physically and mentally hurt in a high profile incident is the perfect example of a child who deserves all the protection that our laws, our constitution and the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child can provide.

An article published along side, written by the same journalist, “—- does not remember accident” (28/05/10 p. 2), featuring the second child to survive the road crash also appeared in this edition ofSowetan. Here again Sowetan fails in its obligation to protect the identity of a child witness to a crime, by naming the teenager.  The boy is quoted as saying he “still cannot remember being hit by the cars” but this doesn’t change the fact that he is afforded protection in law.

However a much more sensitive approach was taken in this article. The child was given the opportunity to describe how he felt about the crash (“I am not angry, but sometimes I do ask myself “why us?”, p. 2), about how supportive his friends have been (“My friends insisted that we start using transport that fetches us from home and school” p. 2) and about how he is coping (“I’ll be okay. I just try and do everything right, not to be reckless”, p. 2).
To shed light on the impact a road traffic accident has on the lives of crash victims and their families is a praiseworthy goal. The second article could have been a positive example of this if the child had been given a pseudonym.

_______