Assignment 2 Semester 2 2025
2 2025
Unique Number:
Due date: September 2025
QUESTION 1
Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 empowers a judge, regional
magistrate or magistrate, on the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions or an
authorised prosecutor, to summon any person likely to provide material or relevant
information about an alleged offence.1 The person is then compelled to appear and provide
information. Failure to do so may expose the witness to arrest or punishment unless the
information has already been provided satisfactorily, usually by way of affidavit.1
For journalists, this section is significant because it allows the state to compel them to
disclose confidential information, including the identity of sources. The intention of section
205 is to ensure that all relevant evidence is available for the administration of justice and
the maintenance of law and order.1 However, the compulsory nature of the provision often
clashes with the ethical obligation of journalists to protect their sources.
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
QUESTION 1
Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 empowers a judge, regional
magistrate or magistrate, on the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions or an
authorised prosecutor, to summon any person likely to provide material or relevant
information about an alleged offence.1 The person is then compelled to appear and
provide information. Failure to do so may expose the witness to arrest or punishment
unless the information has already been provided satisfactorily, usually by way of
affidavit.2
For journalists, this section is significant because it allows the state to compel them
to disclose confidential information, including the identity of sources. The intention of
section 205 is to ensure that all relevant evidence is available for the administration
of justice and the maintenance of law and order.3 However, the compulsory nature of
the provision often clashes with the ethical obligation of journalists to protect their
sources.
The procedure under section 205 has safeguards. It is subject to subsection (4),
which prevents imprisonment for failure to answer unless the judicial officer is
satisfied that the disclosure is necessary for justice or public order.4 In addition, the
Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-
related Information Act 70 of 2002 confirms that section 205 may still be used, but
not on an ongoing basis.5 The process takes place before an independent judicial
officer, and only those who are likely to give material information may be
summoned.6 These restrictions were introduced to prevent abuse and to strike a
balance between state interests and individual rights.
The constitutionality of section 205 was challenged in Nel v Le Roux NO and
Others.7 The Constitutional Court held that the provision was not unconstitutional.
The Court reasoned that the rights of witnesses were protected because the
subpoena is issued through judicial oversight, and questions that unjustifiably
1
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, s 205(1).
2
Ibid.
3
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, s 205(4).
4
Ibid.
5
Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act 70 of
2002, s 15.
6
Nel v Le Roux NO and Others 1996 (3) SA 562 (CC) para 11.
7
Ibid.