Why Stuart Scharnick Was Wrong to Confront and Intimidate a Journalist Covering Public Proceedings

 

Stuart Scharnick is legally and procedurally wrong on three key counts:

1. Public Space and Official Inquiry The incident took place at the Bridget Mabandla Justice College, where the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry was sitting. Because this is an open, authorized public proceeding of major public interest, people present inside the venue do not have an expectation of complete privacy.
2. Freedom of the Press Under Section 16 of the South African Constitution, media freedom and the right to inform the public are protected. Accredited journalists covering the commission, like Sowetan reporter Herman Moloi, are explicitly authorized to film, photograph, and record proceedings and the individuals involved without seeking individual consent. Scharnick's demand for express permission has no legal standing in that setting.
3. Alleged Intimidation and Criminal Conduct Even if someone disagrees with being filmed, the legal recourse is to raise a formal complaint with the commission's organizers or media liaisons. Instead, Scharnick allegedly confronted Moloi, pointed fingers, and demanded they go outside in a threatening tone. Cross-examining or threatening a journalist crosses the line into criminal intimidation, which led to Scharnick's arrest by police at the venue.