The High Court in Johannesburg has issued a variation of the court order instructing the Centre for Investigative Journalism, amaBhungane, to return thousands of the Moti Group’s leaked documents.
The documents allegedly link the Moti Group, a company owned by controversial businessman Zunaid Moti, to a raft of improper relationships with Zimbabwe’s ruling elite.
Investigative journalists used the documents to produce a series of stories about the company.
In terms of the variation, amaBhungane does not have to hand over the documents at this stage – but it also cannot write and release further articles at this time based on the material.
On Thursday, the court ordered that amaBhungane return the documents by Saturday evening.
The variation of the court order was issued following an urgent application by amaBhugane in the Johannesburg High Court on Saturday morning.
Amabhungane says the variation undoes the worst aspects of the order.
Campaign for Free Expression Executive Director, Anton Harber has welcomed the judgement.
He says, “I think today’s judge overturned the worst part of the judgement that’s been given in secrecy during the week and at least to ensure now it can go for a full hearing, rather than a secret hearing. And that he’s frozen the situation temporarily until there’s a proper court hearing into this matter. Well there’s no question that the judgement earlier on the week was a very severe attack on the work of journalists and the capacity of journalists to do their work.”
Meanwhile, Moti has rubbished claims that he had anything to hide after obtaining Thursday’s court order. The businessman adds some information in the documents has been forged.
“Not only have they stolen documents from us, but certain people who have given them the documents, have altered the documents and created forgeries. And all we wanted from them was to supply us with our own documents to validate them. We were not at any stage compelling them to tell us who gave them the documents. If someone gave it to them, they were informed that the documents were stolen. And then they started printing articles based on stolen and adjusted documents. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s very sensational.”
