Assignment 2 Semester 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.
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 67 171 1739
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. Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.