The High court has ruled that judges have inherent authority to regulate media coverage of court proceedings.
Justice Collins Acellam held that courts must, where necessary, balance the constitutional right to freedom of expression with the right to a fair trial and the broader public interest.
The ruling arose from a judicial review application filed by journalist Livingstone Matovu, who challenged a directive issued by the Mengo Chief Magistrate’s court barring media houses from audio and video recording during the ongoing criminal trial of a city pastor.
The directive also required journalists seeking to attend the proceedings to first undergo verification before being granted access to the courtroom. Matovu argued that the restrictions were arbitrary and interfered with the work of the media.
He contended that the order risked undermining transparency in the judicial process and could lead to a miscarriage of justice. Matovu further maintained that the magistrate’s decision was made without properly applying the legal principles governing the exclusion of the public or the press from court proceedings.
However, in his ruling, Justice Acellam held that while the principle of open justice guarantees public access to court proceedings, it does not automatically confer a constitutional right for the media to broadcast or digitally transmit proceedings in real time.
He emphasised that a courtroom open to the public should not automatically be treated as a media studio for live broadcasting. The judge explained that Article 43 of the Constitution allows for limitations on rights where such restrictions are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society and do not exceed what is acceptable.
In this case, he noted that the measures introduced by the magistrate were regulatory in nature and intended to protect the integrity of the trial process. Acellam further observed that Section 40(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act grants magistrates the authority to regulate their proceedings, including excluding members of the public where it is necessary in the interests of justice.
Beyond statutory provisions, he said, courts also possess inherent jurisdiction to control their own processes in order to maintain order, protect the rights of the accused, and prevent prejudice during a trial.
The judge noted that the magistrate’s order did not close the court to the public but only prohibited live audio and video recording while requiring media personnel to be verified and accredited before accessing the courtroom.
According to Acellam, these measures were designed to regulate the conduct of proceedings rather than deny the public the right to observe them. He also observed that courts across common law jurisdictions have increasingly recognised the risks associated with electronic broadcasting of court proceedings.
Such risks include the possibility of witness intimidation, the rapid spread of prejudicial commentary on social media during an ongoing trial, and the permanence and potential distortion of digital recordings once they circulate online.
Acellam concluded that Matovu had failed to demonstrate that the magistrate acted outside the scope of statutory or inherent authority. He added that the prosecution’s concerns about possible prejudice arising from social media commentary during a pending criminal trial were legally relevant considerations for the magistrate when making the decision.
The court also found no evidence of bias, bad faith, or procedural impropriety in the magistrate’s actions. Justice Acellam therefore ruled that the application for judicial review lacked merit, reaffirming that courts retain the authority to regulate broadcasting of proceedings where necessary to safeguard the fairness and integrity of a trial.
About the Author
