Suzanne Brenner Takes Issue with Jani Allan

It’s unusual for one writer to write about another, but a post on my Facebook page last night grabbed my attention. My FB friend and tweetpal Jani Allan posted a recent interview with someone called Glen Larmer on New Zealand’s RadioLive.

So why am I writing about her?

SAPeople readers will be familiar with Jani’s Dear Oscar letter, which recently appeared on these pages and others besides. So when I heard Jani claim there was no freedom of speech here and that her opinions “would not be allowed in South Africa”, my hackles rose.

Currently our celebrated constitution protects freedom of speech and while the so-called secrecy bill may be lurking, I very much doubt anything Jani has said would be cause for concern. In the meantime, I suspect we can say a great deal more in South Africa than would be allowed in America where Jani resides, though of course the world treads uncertainly into new territories with social media playing such a pivotal role.

On the subject of what one can or cannot say in this country in relation to the sub judice rule, I recently began a conversation on Twitter with Dario Milo (@Dariomilo), a media law expert who acted for some of the media in their application to be allowed court access for the Oscar trial.

Last year, after Oscar’s bail application, Milo and his colleague Avabi Singh authored a feature for the local Sunday Independent where they discussed “the notorious sub judice rule, and the uncertainty that surrounds what it means and how it applies.”

They wrote of the “tension between the administration of justice, which it purports to protect, and the constitutional right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to receive and impart information. A breach of the sub judice rule could result in a charge of contempt of court and a criminal conviction.”

They elaborated that insofar as criminal cases go, the rule usually kicks in “from the date of arrest or when a warning to appear in court is issued. The period only ends once the final judgment on the matter is handed down after all possible appeals have been exhausted.”

The lawyers pointed out that much has changed since apartheid days, where “the sub judice rule would be breached if the statement might have influenced the outcome of a case, assuming that the court accepted that statement.”

Summing up, the lawyers concluded that “whether there is a real and substantial risk to the administration of justice, the mere existence of adverse media coverage is insufficient”, and “although the media have been replete with sensational allegations about what happened on that fateful Valentine’s Day, none of this reportage has, in our view, crossed the legal line.”

Of course, their legal opinions haven’t been tested in a court of law but by the same token nobody to date has been charged for the views they have expressed – and that includes my wordsmith sister, Jani Allan. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Lest it be not clear, Jani’s South African comeback and imminent book launch have been heralded here in SA by her headline-grabbing blogs and her tweets not only via the social media but also in print and digital publications.

There was a time when Jani buried the story about the rightwing leader and her classic line, “I’m impaled on the blue flames of his blowtorch eyes”.

It’s anyone’s guess why she brought it out of mothballs to make an unlikely comparison with Oscar, but I unreservedly support Jani’s right to do so and I enjoy and welcome her colourful presence among the myriad voices commenting on Oscar Pistorius’ murder trial.

***

Before I let Jani off the hook, she also said more than once that her blog earned her no money and when last I looked, she was waiting on tables in America (or did she say a restaurant hostess?).

So I found it disingenuous at best when she hedged a repeat question from the interviewer, who had obviously not done his homework: “If you were in South Africa, you wouldn’t be able to get that piece published, would you?”

She hesitated just a moment before replying: “I don’t think so…”

Soon afterwards, Jani offered that there were no job opportunities for a white middle-aged woman.

“So I would have no voice there, there is no freedom of speech.”

Come on Jani, own up.

**********************************************************

Day 26 of the Oscar Pistorius Trial

It was with anticipation that I awaited the resumption of the Oscar Pistorius trial for the 2013 Valentine’s Day killing of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

It was short-lived, because only two witnesses were available today so before lunchtime, Judge Thokzile Masipa conceded to an adjournment until tomorrow.

When proceedings came to a halt before Easter, trial watchers were left with a sense of bemusement about the so-called expert witness for the defence, Roger Dixon, who came across as a plant for the prosecution.

State Advocate Gerrie Nel had made mincemeat of both Oscar and Dixon, which many experts believe was a serious setback for the defence.

Today was a much more sedate affair with just two witnesses on the stand, Johan Stander and his daughter Carice Viljoen. They were the first people at the scene of the crime after Oscar had summoned Stander with the news that he’d killed Reeva.

Described as Oscar’s friend and neighbour (at the time), Stander was also the manager of Silver Woods Estate where Oscar was living.

Independently of each other, father and daughter both testified that they’d seen a distraught Oscar carrying a wounded and bleeding Reeva downstairs, screaming, crying and praying as he did so.

Taken aback by Nel’s repetitive questions, Stander nearly caused an upset when he claimed Oscar had said he accidentally shot Reeva. Nel pounced on this contradictory version of Oscar’s testimony and Stander retracted his statement saying the mistake was his not Oscar’s.

By contrast, Viljoen was confident and unwavering in her recollection of that night. Surprisingly, perhaps, her entire testimony was virtually uncontested by Nel – but of course that doesn’t mean he won’t revisit today’s evidence.

As for Oscar, he held his head in his hands revealing a patchiness in his closely shaved scalp, though I suspect that’s the least on his mind right now as the the end draws ever closer.

The case resumes tomorrow at 09:30.