By Emma Giles
When your student leaders stand before you and read their manifestos, you can almost guarantee they will emphasise two words: transparency and accountability. But what does this mean in practice? Do all our student leaders, especially those serving in the statutory bodies, understand what democracy and constitutional rights really mean? Does hiding behind their inboxes and making decisions in closed boardrooms align with their promises? And how can you participate in the decisions these leaders make on your behalf?
A functioning democracy (as in South Africa) is made up of three powers, namely the Legislature (Parliament and provincial legislatures), the Executive (the Cabinet, the provincial Executive Councils and the public service), and the Judiciary (the courts). The fourth power – the “Fourth Estate” – is the media. The media acts as an independent watchdog, essential to ensuring transparency and accountability in these structures.
According to the Press Code of South Africa, which outlines the ethical responsibilities of print and online media in South Africa, “the media exist to serve society. Their freedom provides for independent scrutiny of the forces that shape society and is essential to realising the promise of democracy. It enables citizens to make informed judgments on the issues of the day, a role whose centrality is recognised in the South African Constitution”.
Over the past few months, student leaders at Stellenbosch University (SU) have tried to limit or prevent Die Matie journalists from reporting at multiple public and official gatherings and meetings.
In many of these cases, the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) has been used as the basis for attempting to halt our reporting. Die Matie is aware of POPIA. However, POPIA does not restrict legitimate journalism. A person can lawfully process personal information for journalistic purposes without complying with POPIA if it is in the public interest. Read more about these exemptions further down.
Die Matie student newspaper sees its role as central to enriching students’ experience on campus and to enable them to make informed decisions about the people who represent them. We look forward to working with, amongst others, the Student Representative Council (SRC), Student Parliament and leaders of political student organisations to provide a platform to share their views as well as providing robust reviews from a variety of sources.
Together, we are essential players in our student democracy. Together, we are informing and empowering SU students. As representatives of all students, we call upon the student leaders to engage with us as student media.
In March, Die Matie sent a document clarifying our rights and responsibilities to the SRC and Student Parliament to ensure that we are not blocked from public/official gatherings or unfairly stopped from reporting at these events.
We believe it is also essential for the public to understand the role of the press in a democratic society and would like to share the key points of this document with our readers.
The Institutional Statute is the constitution of SU. The Statute provides the foundational structures and processes within which the values, ideals and principles driving the university are being conducted and pursued. The Statute is subject to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.Therefore, the university adheres to the principles and values in the Constitution – including press freedom.
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
Section 16 in Chapter 2 (Bill of Rights) in the Constitution guarantees the freedom of the press which functions under the overarching right to freedom of expression. The exact wording is:
“16. Freedom of expression
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes:
(a) freedom of the press and other media;
(b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
(c) freedom of artistic creativity; and
(d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
“(2) The right in subsection (1) does not extend to:
(a) propaganda for war;
(b) incitement of imminent violence; or
(c) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender, or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.”
Die Matie adheres to the Code of Ethics and Conduct for South African Print and Online Media (Press Code of South Africa). This means Die Matie enjoys the same freedoms as the general press in South Africa.
Chapter 1, Section 3 (Privacy, Dignity and Reputation) of the South African Press Code states, “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving the private lives of individuals. The right to privacy may be overridden by legitimate public interest.”
So, what does this mean?
Decoding the Code – sentence by sentence, a booklet published by the Press Council of South Africa, “clarifies and simplifies the Press Code” in an accessible and understandable manner.
Pages 31-33 unpacks Chapter 1, Section 3 of the Press Code:
“The concept of privacy is complicated, and it is rather a modern one.
“Let’s try to simplify the matter: A person has the right to privacy in her or his home, as well as to matters such as health, sex, and finance. Normally, when people leave the privacy of their home, they have a lesser right to privacy as they enter public space. However, people may have a legitimate expectation of privacy even in a public place, for example when eating in a remote corner in a tea garden, or in a (public) restroom.
“Moreover, privacy does not mean the same thing to everybody – one needs to make a distinction between public officials, public figures or celebrities, and ordinary citizens.
“Public officials have the least right to privacy because they are getting paid with taxpayers’ money – which means that they are accountable to the public, which in turn entails that it is the duty of the media to hold such people accountable. They have no grounds to complain if the media reveal their private matters when such issues have a bearing on their public duty.
“Of course, this does not mean that public officials have no privacy at all. The litmus test is always whether a certain matter impacts on the fulfilment of their public duties. This, of course, is a grey area. For example, when the President of the United States has an extramarital affair, many of its citizens are up in arms; if it happens in France, people ask: ‘So what?’ This may be an overstatement, but it does serve to illustrate that values and norms may vary – which should alert the media even more to be careful when making decisions whether to expose private information or not.
“To a lesser extent, but still so, public figures or celebrities should also be held accountable for their actions – not because they are getting paid with public money, but because they are role models, especially for the youth. For that reason, the media have the right to report on their private lives – but again, only if it impacts on their roles in society.
“Private citizens have the most right to privacy. For example, if an individual has an extramarital affair, publications should (normally) ignore it as it is of little or no importance to the public.”
Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA)
POPIA enables (rather than prevents) the press or media to process personal information for journalistic purposes.
Section 7 (Exclusion for journalistic, literary or artistic purposes) in Chapter 2 of the Act states the following:
“(1) This Act does not apply to the processing of personal information solely for the purpose of journalistic, literary or artistic expression to the extent that such an exclusion is necessary to reconcile, as a matter of public interest, the right to privacy with the right to freedom of expression.
“(2) Where a responsible party who processes personal information for exclusively journalistic purposes is, by virtue of office, employment or profession, subject to a code of ethics that provides adequate safeguards for the protection of personal information, such code will apply to the processing concerned to the exclusion of this Act and any alleged interference with the protection of the personal information of a data subject that may arise as a result of such processing must be adjudicated as provided for in terms of that code.”
So, what does this mean?
POPIA does not restrict legitimate journalism. A person can lawfully process personal information for journalistic purposes without complying with POPIA if it is in the public interest. Where journalists are bound by a code of ethics (like the Press Code), that code governs how the information is managed, and any complaints are dealt with under that code, rather than under POPIA.
The preamble of the SU Student Constitution states:
“We, the students at Stellenbosch University, conscious of our diverse cultural heritage and the historical context of Stellenbosch University and our country, the Republic of South Africa, unite to build a multicultural and democratic community that is free from discrimination, in conformity with the Bill of Student Rights in Chapter 2 of this Constitution and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.
“We acknowledge our responsibility to participate in the democratic structures recognised by this Constitution.
“Subject to the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, the Higher Education Act, the Statute of Stellenbosch University, and University regulations, we accept this as our binding Constitution.”
Chapter 2 (Bill of student rights), Section 10(1)(b) promotes the freedom of expression and the freedom of student media:
“(1) Every student has the right to freedom of expression, which does not extend to hate speech, and which includes
(a) Freedom of academic expression and scientific research.
(b) Freedom of the student media.
(c) Freedom to receive and impart information and ideas.”
REACH OUT
For any further questions, please contact us at diematie@sun.ac.za or diematie75@gmail.com.
Emma Giles: Editor-in-Chief 2025/2026
