TRC Final Report

Volume 4

Chapter 6

Subsection 11

■ APPENDIX 3 NEWSPAPER PRESS UNION — CHRONOLOGY³

1 In the 1950s, the English press was regularly attacked by NP members, including the Prime Minister Strijdom and later on Verwoerd. Warnings concerning the possibility of a press council and legislation to control the press surfaced and, in Parliament and at party congresses, the NP constantly complained about the English press.

2 Cas Greyling, NP MP for Carletonville, was the most vociferous agitator against the press throughout his time in Parliament, making repeated calls for legislation to control journalists. In 1959, he is reported as saying that not only was it right to silence ANC leaders such as Albert Luthuli and Oliver Tambo, but that most of the newspapermen sending reports overseas should also be banned. He said they were guilty of sabotaging the government’s policy of apartheid. This is typical of the regular remarks made by him and other members of the NP government.

3 In 1951, DH Ollemans, Argus Chair, responding to the Van Zijl Press Commission, proposed that a voluntary press council be established. He received little immediate support but pressed for the idea in years to come.

4 Early in 1962, the NPU denied “any suggestion of outside interference” or pressure to set up the Press Board of Reference (eventually to become the Press Council). Soon after this, it held a special meeting at which it adopted a constitution for a Press Board of Reference and a code of conduct for journalists.

5 According to reports, support for the Board and code came from the Argus group (Argus Chair Leyton Slater steered the scheme through) and Afrikaans newspapers, while most of the SAAN representatives were opposed to it. The main difference between the South African code of conduct and that of other countries was that journalists were not required to observe professional secrecy to protect sources of information. It also contained a political injunction that journalists should “take cognisance of the complex racial problems of SA and the general good and safety of the country and its peoples.”

6 The SASJ, forerunner to the SAUJ, significantly, was excluded from negotiations between the NPU and the government, and felt that while the press in other countries might indeed have a similar system of self-regulation, the South African system established at this time was not operating in a democratic context. Later, in 1971, it did recognise the Press Board of Reference.

7 In 1963, the Film and Publications Act established the Publications Control Board. NPU publications were not, however, subject to this law.

8 In 1964, the second report of the Van Zijl Press Commission claimed that the Press Board of Reference did “not satisfy the fundamental requirements of a body designed to discipline or encourage self-control of the press”. It recommended the formation of a press council with statutory powers and the compulsory annual registration of journalists and newspapers with this council. It should also be able to order its judgements to be published, and impose fines of unlimited amounts. A compromise was reached with the establishment of a Board of Reference empowered to reprimand.

9 After the assassination of Verwoerd in 1966, Vorster came to power and the attacks on the English press continued with Prime Minister Vorster ‘playing’ what has been described as a “cat-and-mouse game” with the media. By constantly threatening the press, he was able to force it to apply self-censorship incrementally over the years.

10 In January 1967, the Minister of Defence and the President of the NPU entered a controversial agreement, supposedly to ensure regular contact between the NPU and the SADF and ARMSCOR.

11 In October in the same year, an NPU/SAP agreement provided for press identity cards.

12 In 1973, Vorster repeatedly threatened to amend the Riotous Assemblies Act to enable the courts to “deal properly” with people who were sowing enmity between the races. Newspapers were clearly the target.

13 In 1974, despite claims to the contrary, Slater, who was chair of the NPU at the time, was involved in secret talks with government regarding a revised constitution and code of conduct. The amended constitution would allow the council to impose fines of up to R10 000 and required all members of the NPU to accept the jurisdiction of the council. The new code of conduct was even more controversial. It demanded of newspapers

(1) due care and responsibility concerning matters which can have the effect of stirring up feelings of hostility between racial, ethnic, religious or cultural groups in South Africa, or which can affect the safety and defence of the country and its peoples, and

(2) due compliance with agreements entered into between the NPU and any department of the government of South Africa with a view to public safety or security or the general good.