Wikipedia

'Yanci na faɗar albarkacin baki a Afirka ta Kudu

An tabbatar da 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki a Afirka ta Kudu a sashi na 16 na Kundin Tsarin Mulki na Afirka ta Kudu. Wannan haƙƙin 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki, wanda ake ɗauka yana da muhimmancin gaske ga dimokuradiyya ta tsarin mulki ta Afirka ta Kudu, an fara gane shi a cikin Kundin Tsarin Mulki na wucin gadi na 1993. Hakkin ba shi da cancanta - wasu nau'ikan magana sun fada waje da sashi na 16 (1), kuma haƙƙin yana iya iyakancewa daidai da ka'idodin tsarin mulki na Afirka ta Kudu. Amfani da haƙƙin 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki ta kotuna ya yi tasiri sosai a kan, a tsakanin sauran fannoni, dokar aikata laifuka ta Afirka ta Kudu, Dokar ɓata suna da Dokar alamar kasuwanci.

'Yanci na faɗar albarkacin baki a Afirka ta Kudu

Rubutun sashi na 16 (1)

gyara sashe

Sashe na 16 (1) na Kundin Tsarin Mulki, wanda ke cikin Dokar Hakki, ya ba da cewa:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes–

(a) freedom of the press and other media;
(b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
(c) freedom of artistic creativity; and
(d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

Yanayi, abun ciki da tasirin dama

gyara sashe

Mai shari'a Mokgoro a cikin shari'ar da Ministan Tsaro [1] ya bayyana haƙƙin 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki a matsayin "wani ɓangare na yanar gizo na haƙƙin tallafawa juna" wanda "a iya ɗaukar su tare a matsayin tushen haƙƙin shiga cikin tsarin ci gaba na hulɗar sadarwa wanda ke da ƙimar kayan aiki da ƙima". Hakazalika, muhimmancin dama a cikin tarihin zamantakewar Afirka ta Kudu ya jaddada ta Justice Kriegler a cikin S da Mamabolo kamar haka:[2]

Freedom of expression, especially when gauged in conjunction with its accompanying fundamental freedoms, is of the utmost importance in the kind of open and democratic society the Constitution has set as our aspirational norm. Having regard to our recent past of thought control, censorship and enforced conformity to governmental theories, freedom of expression — the free and open exchange of ideas — is no less important than it is in the United States of America. It could actually be contended with much force that the public interest in the open market-place of ideas is all the more important to us in this country because our democracy is not yet firmly established and must feel its way.

Kalmomin "yancin faɗar albarkacin baki" ba tare da wata shakka ba suna ba da kariya ta tsarin mulki ga halayyar bayyanawa ba tare da sadarwa ta baki ba, tare da waɗancan nau'ikan faɗar da aka ƙidaya musamman a cikin sashi na 16 (1) gabaɗaya ana ɗaukar su a matsayin ainihin ainihin faɗar kariya. Hanyoyin faɗar albarkacin baki kamar batsa da Magana ta kasuwanci, waɗanda kotuna suka ɗauka suna da ƙima mai ƙima a cikin hasken tushen falsafar kariya ta 'yancin faɗar magana, galibi ana bayyana su a matsayin waɗanda ke cikin "ƙasa" na' yancin faɗakarwa, kuma ta haka ne suna iya samun iyakancewa mai yawa idan aka kwatanta da Magana ta siyasa ko' yancin fasaha.

A cikin BDS Afirka ta Kudu v Continental Outdoor Media (Pty) Ltd, [3] kotun ta nuna bambanci tsakanin kyakkyawan aikin hukumomin jihar don girmamawa, karewa, ingantawa da cika haƙƙin 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki, da kuma mummunan wajibin da ke kan ƙungiyoyi masu zaman kansu kada su tsoma baki ko rage jin daɗin wannan haƙƙin. Ta haka ne aka gudanar da cewa wata hukumar talla ta yi aiki ba bisa ka'ida ba kuma ba bisa ka-idaita ba ta hanyar cire allon talla da ke adawa da mamayar Isra'ila a Falasdinu kafin cikar lokacin jirgin da aka amince da shi. Hukumar ta ɗauki aikin kada ta tsoma baki tare da dandalin da aka ba BDS don bayyana wasu hujjoji ko ra'ayoyi kyauta a cikin tsarin kwangilarta tare da hukumar, da kuma mutunta kariya ta yanzu na 'yancin BDS na' yancin faɗar albarkacin baki.

Rashin amincewa da iyakoki

gyara sashe

Sashe na 16 (2) na Kundin Tsarin Mulki ya ba da cewa 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki ba ya kaiwa ga farfaganda don yaki, tayar da tashin hankali mai zuwa, ko kuma "bayar da ƙiyayya wanda ya dogara da launin fata, kabilanci, jinsi ko addini, kuma hakan ya zama tayar da hankali don haifar da lahani". Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki a cikin Yarjejeniyar Haɗin Kai ta Musulunci v Hukumar watsa shirye-shirye mai zaman kanta [4] ta tabbatar da cewa nau'ikan maganganun da aka lissafa a cikin wannan sashe sun fita daga cikin yanayin maganganun kariya ta kundin tsarin mulki. Duk wani tsari na irin wannan magana ba a dauke shi a matsayin iyakancewar haƙƙin da aka bayar ta sashi na 16 (1).

Abubuwa biyu na farko na maganganun da aka ware sun samo asali ne daga Yarjejeniyar Kasa da Kasa kan 'Yancin Bil'adama da Siyasa, da kuma Kotun Koli ta Amurka na Brandenburg da Ohio, bi da bi. Duk da yake ba tare da sukar ilimi ba, waɗannan warewa sun sami kulawa kaɗan daga kotuna. Fassara da aikace-aikacen haramtacciyar Magana ta ƙiyayya sun kasance mafi rikitarwa.

A yanayin da ba a cire maganganu daga kariya ta tsarin mulki ba, duk wani iyaka a kan irin wannan magana dole ne a tabbatar da shi dangane da sashi na iyaka na gaba ɗaya da ke cikin sashi na 36 (1) na Kundin Tsarin Mulki, wanda ya ba da cewa:

The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including—

(a) the nature of the right;
(b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
(c) the nature and extent of the limitation;
(d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
(e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.

Binciken da aka yi a wannan bangaren yayi kama da tsarin iyakance haƙƙoƙi a ƙarƙashin Sashe na 1 na Yarjejeniyar 'Yancin Kanada da' Yanci, kuma ana iya rarrabe shi daga matsayi a cikin shari'ar magana ta 'yanci ta Amurka, inda raguwa a cikin ikon kariya da aka ba da wani nau'in magana gabaɗaya yana faruwa a matakin ma'anar.

Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki ta gudanar a cikin De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division) [5] cewa Hotunan batsa na yara ba su fada cikin wani sashi na 16 (2) ba, kuma ta haka ne ya zama furcin kariya, duk da cewa bayyanar kusan babu darajar da za a iya sani ba. Wani haramtacciyar doka game da mallakar hotunan batsa na yara da ke cikin Dokar Fim da Littattafai saboda haka dole ne a tabbatar da shi dangane da sashi na 36 na Kundin Tsarin Mulki. A cikin tabbatar da haramcin, kotun ta gano cewa haramcin kai tsaye ya yi aiki da manufa ta halal ta kare mutuncin da hana cutar da yara, kuma babu wata hanyar da ta rage don cimma wannan manufar.

Magana ta ƙiyayya

gyara sashe

Sashe na 16 (2) (c) na Kundin Tsarin Mulki yana da ɗan gajeren iyaka. Magana kawai an cire shi daga kariya idan ya zama bayar da shawarwari game da ƙiyayya bisa ga ɗaya ko fiye daga cikin halaye huɗu da aka lissafa,da kuma ya zama motsawa don haifar da lahani. An gudanar da cewa irin wannan cutar na iya zama na jiki, motsin rai ko tunanin mutum.[6] Wasu masu sharhi sun ba da shawarar cewa maganin shari'a na sashi na 16 (2) (c) ya yi watsi da abin da ake buƙata, a maimakon haka yana buƙatar cewa magana dole ne kanta ta haifar, ko kuma mai yiwuwa ya haifar, cutar da ake tambaya. Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki a Yarjejeniyar Haɗin Kai ta Musulunci ta yanke hukuncin cewa haramtacciyar watsa shirye-shiryen kayan da "watakila ya nuna bambanci ga dangantakar da ke tsakanin sassan jama'a" ba ta dace da kundin tsarin mulki ba, saboda ba a iyakance maganganun da aka jera a cikin sashi na 16 (2), kuma iyakancewar da aka ɗora ba ta dace ba saboda rashin tabbas da girman haramcin.

Irin wannan la'akari ya taso a cikin shawarar Qwelane v Hukumar Kare Hakkin Dan Adam ta Afirka ta Kudu, [6] wanda ya shafi tsarin mulki na tanadin Inganta Daidaitawa da Rigakafin Nuna Bambanci marar adalci wanda ya haramta maganganun ƙiyayya a cikin yanayi fiye da waɗanda aka tsara a sashi na 16 (2). Rikici ya tashi ne sakamakon wallafa wani shafi na Jon Qwelane a cikin Sunday Sun wanda ya kwatanta auren jinsi guda da jima'i. Kotun ta gano cewa fadada tushen maganganun ƙiyayya don haɗawa, da sauransu, yanayin Jima'i, ya kasance iyakancewar haƙƙin faɗar albarkacin baki, amma dole ne a karanta tanadin don buƙatar cewa magana ta kasance mai cutarwa ko mai iya haifar da lahani,da kuma tana da niyyar ingantawa ko yada ƙiyayya, don a hana ta. An gano haramtacciyar magana da ke da "ɓatacciyar" kawai ba ta da tabbas kuma saboda haka keta doka ta sashi na 16 (1) dama. Sashen Gauteng na Babban Kotun a cikin Afriforum v Economic Freedom Fighters ya dogara da wannan ci gaba a matsayin tushen binciken da ya yi cewa waƙar waƙar mai rikitarwa Dubul 'ibhunu a tarurrukan 'yancin 'yancin tattalin arziki ya zama halattaccen amfani da haƙƙin 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki - ƙaddamarwa wanda ya tashi daga hukuncin Kotun Daidaitawa na Afriforum v Malema. [7][8]

 
Bayyanawa ta jama'a kyauta game da tutar Afirka ta Kudu ta zamanin wariyar launin fata, wacce a baya ta tashi daga Castle of Good Hope, an gano ta zama maganganun ƙiyayya.

Kotun da ke cikin Hukumar Kare Hakkin Dan Adam ta Afirka ta Kudu obo Hukumar Wakilai ta Yahudawa ta Afirka ta Tsakiya v Masuku [9] ta tabbatar da cewa ko wata sanarwa ta ƙunshi jawabin ƙiyayya za a tantance ta da ma'ana. Kotun, ta yi amfani da wannan gwajin, ta gano cewa mutum mai ma'ana zai ɗauki wata magana da ke nufin "Zionists waɗanda ke cikin zamanin abokinsu Hitler" kamar yadda ya dogara da asalin Yahudawa kuma ta haka ne haramtacciyar tushen addini.

Duk da ambaton maganganun ƙiyayya a bayyane a cikin "kalmomi" a cikin Dokar Inganta Daidaitawa da Rigakafin Nuna Bambanci mara adalci, Kotun Koli ta Daukaka Kara ta gudanar a cikin Afriforum NPC v Nelson Mandela Foundation Trust [10] cewa haramcin da ke cikin wannan doka ya damu da "sadar da ra'ayoyi" ko "sadarwar saƙo". Saboda haka, an gano nuna tutar Afirka ta Kudu ta lokacin wariyar launin fata ba tare da izini ba, dangane da tanadin cewa nuna tutar don dalilai na fasaha, ilimi ko aikin jarida.

Tasirin

gyara sashe

Dokar aikata laifuka

gyara sashe

Tsarin mulki na aikata laifuka wanda ya fada cikin yanayin 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki a lokuta da yawa kotuna sun yi la'akari da shi. A Mamabolo, [2] an gudanar da cewa laifin cin zarafin kotun, wanda ke da manufar kare ikon ɗabi'a na tsarin shari'a, ba bisa ka'ida ba ne, idan dai an fassara laifin a takaice don ya ƙunshi kawai wannan hali wanda, idan aka kalli shi a cikin mahallin, zai iya lalata gudanar da adalci. An tabbatar da ingancin kundin tsarin mulki na cin zarafin aikata laifuka a cikin S da Hoho,, tare da kotun ta gano cewa tasirin da ya dace da laifin ya daidaita ta hanyar nauyin hujja.[11] Rarraba da yawa na Babban Kotun sun tabbatar da hukunci da hukunce-hukunce don laifin da ya shafi laifin cutar ba tare da batun 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki ba.

Kwanan nan, Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki a cikin 'yancin 'yancin tattalin arziki v Ministan Shari'a da Ayyukan Gyara [12] ta yanke hukuncin cewa tanadin Dokar Taron Taron da ke aikata laifuka ta sa wasu su aikata "kowane laifi" ba tare da izini ba ya iyakance haƙƙin faɗar albarkacin baki har zuwa lokacin da tanadin ya wuce waɗancan laifuka da ke barazana ga mummunar lahani ko haɗari. Hakazalika, kotun a cikin Moyo v Ministan 'yan sanda ta gano cewa Dokar Tsoro ba ta dace da kundin tsarin mulki ba har ya aikata laifuka da ta dace da haifar da tsoro mai ma'ana game da mummunan rauni.[13]

Rashin girmamawa

gyara sashe

An tsara dokar ɓata suna a cikin wallafe-wallafen shari'a na Afirka ta Kudu a matsayin da niyyar daidaitawa tsakanin haƙƙin suna da haƙƙin 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki. Wannan ƙuduri ya shafi zamanin tsarin mulki ta hanyar muhimmancin da aka haɗa da dama ta ƙarshe. Hakazalika da matsayin da ke cikin Dokar Ingilishi, nauyin hujja ya dogara ne akan wanda ake tuhuma don kafa kariya ta halal da zarar mai shigar da kara ya tabbatar da bugawa na kayan lalata. Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki a cikin Khumalo da Holomisa [14] ta yanke hukuncin cewa matsayin doka ta yau da kullun cewa mai shigar da kara ba ya buƙatar tabbatar da ƙarya don cin nasara tare da da da'awar cin mutunci ya kasance iyakancewa mai ma'ana da kuma cancanta akan haƙƙin faɗar albarkacin baki, saboda an ba da haƙƙin da ya dace da suna, wanda za a ɗauka a matsayin abin da ya faru na haƙƙin da aka fi girma.

Duk da haka, sanya nauyin tsauraran alhakin laifuka daga masu tuhumar kafofin watsa labarai ba su tsira daga binciken tsarin mulki ba. SCA a cikin National Media Ltd v Bogoshi [15] ya kammala cewa mahimman bayanai na 'yancin magana sun bukaci ci gaba da kare wallafe-wallafen da ya dace don yaudarar bugawa a cikin manema labarai a yanayin da ba a ba da wallafe-wallo ba, a tsakanin sauran abubuwa, sautin zarge-zarge da amincin tushen da zarge-korafe suka dogara. Duk da yake binciken kotun ya kasance batun muhawara mai yawa na ilimi, matakin kuskuren da ake buƙata don sanya alhakin ga masu tuhumar kafofin watsa labarai da ke bin Bogoshi galibi ana ɗaukarsa a matsayin na sakaci.

Kotuna sun amince da yiwuwar tasirin da'awar da mutane masu shari'a, musamman kamfanonin kasuwanci, don lalacewar gaba ɗaya don ɓata suna. SCA a cikin Media 24 Ltd v SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd [16] duk da haka ya riƙe cewa wannan matsayi bai iyakance haƙƙin 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki ba. Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki daga baya ta gano a cikin Reddell v Mineral Sands Resources cewa wannan yana ƙarƙashin cancantar cewa irin wannan da'awar ba ta da izini inda zarge-zargen cin zarafi ya zama wani ɓangare na "magana ta jama'a a cikin muhawara ta jama'ar", kuma a cikin Mineral Sands Resources v Reddell cewa dabarun shari'a game da shiga jama'a sun zama cin zarafin tsarin kotu wanda ke ba da kariya daga da'awar cin zarafin cin zarafin.[17][18]

Rashin kunya

gyara sashe

Yawancin Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki a cikin Kotu sun soke haramtacciyar haramtacciya kan "mallaka kayan lalata ko kayan lalata" da ke cikin Dokar Hotuna ta zamani ta wariyar launin fata bisa ga cewa haramcin ya saba wa haƙƙin tsarin mulki na sirri. Mai shari'a Mokgoro a cikin hukuncin 'yan tsiraru, duk da haka, ya yi la'akari da cewa haramcin ya kara keta haƙƙin' yancin faɗar albarkacin baki, wanda ya rungumi "yancin karɓar, riƙewa da cinye maganganun da wasu suka watsa". Kotun a cikin Phillips v Darakta na Masu gabatar da kara daga baya ya dogara da haƙƙin 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki a gano cewa haramtacciyar rawa tsirara a wuraren da aka ba da lasisi ba bisa ka'ida ba ne, saboda tsarin da ya fi dacewa wanda ya haɗa da wuraren kamar gidajen wasan kwaikwayo.[19]

A cikin Print Media South Africa v Ministan Harkokin Cikin Gida da Wani, [20] an gudanar da cewa wani tsarin gudanarwa da aka tanada a cikin Dokar Fim da Littattafai wanda ke buƙatar wallafe-wallafen da ke dauke da wasu abubuwan da ke tattare da jima'i don a gabatar da su ga Kwamitin Fim da Buga don rarrabuwa kafin bugawa ya kai ga ƙuntatawa da ya gabata, kuma ba bisa ka'ida ba saboda wadatar hanyoyin da ba su da ƙuntataccen don cimma manufar haramcin.

'Yanci na' yan jarida

gyara sashe

Dokar Afirka ta Kudu ba ta amince da cikakken damar jarida ba. Duk da haka, an gudanar da shi a cikin Nel da Le Roux [21] cewa mai shaida na iya dogaro da keta haƙƙin kundin tsarin mulki a matsayin "gaskiya kawai" don ƙin amsa tambaya a cikin shari'ar farar hula ko aikata laifuka. A cikin Bosasa Operation (Pty) Ltd v Basson, Babban Kotun ta watsar da aikace-aikacen da za a tilasta bayyana tushen wani labarin da ake zargi da cin zarafi bisa ga muhimmancin 'yancin' yan jarida.[22] Bugu da ƙari, Kotun Tsarin Mulki ta ambaci rashin isasshen kariya don kula da sirrin tushen 'yan jarida a matsayin daya daga cikin batutuwa inda Dokar Tsayar da Sadarwa da Dokar Sadarwa ba bisa ka'ida ba.[23]

Kotun Kundin Tsarin Mulki ta yanke hukuncin cewa, a matsayin farawa, ayyukan kotu da rubuce-rubuce suna buɗewa ga jama'a. A cikin Jaridu masu zaman kansu (Pty) Ltd v Ministan Ayyukan Lantarki, [24] kotun, tana la'akari da la'akari masu fafatawa game da 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki da tsaron ƙasa, ta ba da umarnin bayyana wasu ɓangarorin rikodin kotu da ke dauke da takardu masu ɓoyewa bisa ga cewa ba don amfanin adalci ba ne don waɗannan ɓangarorin su kasance a ɓoye su. Kotun daga baya ta soke tanadin doka wanda ya haramta buga bayanan bayanan ayyukan saki, [25] ya buƙaci cikakkiyar sirri game da aikace-aikacen mafaka, [26] kuma ya haramta bayyana bayanan haraji ba tare da la'akari da abubuwan da jama'a ba.[27] Kowane haramtacciyar doka an gano ya fi hanawa fiye da yadda ya kamata don cimma burinta.

 
An watsa shari'ar Oscar Pistorius kai tsaye daga Fadar Shari'a daidai da hukuncin da aka yi a Multichoice (Mai mallaka) Limited v National Prosecuting Authority [2014] 2 All SA 446 (GP).

SCA a Midi Television (Pty) Ltd t/a e-TV v Director of Public Prosecutions (Western Cape) [28] ya yi la'akari da cewa yin amfani da hankali na kotun don tallafawa bugawa zai kasance kawai don amfanin adalci inda "ra'ayin da bugawa zai iya haifar da gudanar da adalci yana iya nunawa kuma yana da mahimmanci kuma akwai ainihin haɗarin cewa nuna bambanci zai faru idan bugawa ta faru". An fassara wannan binciken a matsayin goyon baya ga zato game da tsarin mulki na ƙuntatawa da hanawa game da wallafe-wallafen lalata, kuma ana ɗaukarsa a matsayin raguwar mulkin shari'a. Dangane da ka'idar bude adalci, kotuna sun, zuwa matakai daban-daban, sun ba da izinin watsa shirye-shiryen da suka shafi al'amuran da suka shafi jama'a, gami da ayyukan Hukumar Bincike kan Kasuwancin Wasanni da Al'amuran Da suka danganci, tambayar Mark Thatcher dangane da sa hannu a Yunkurin juyin mulkin Equatorial Guinea na 2004, da kuma shari'ar aikata laifuka na Oscar Pistorius [29] da Henri van Breda.[30][31][32]

Hakkin bugawa a wasu lokuta ya shiga rikici tare da haƙƙin sirri. Babban Kotun a cikin MEC na Lafiya, Mpumalanga v M-Net & Another [33] ya ki hana watsa shirye-shiryen Carte Blanche game da zargin rashin aiki a asibitin jama'a duk da keta sirrin ma'aikatan asibiti. Hakazalika, an kori aikace-aikacen don umarnin hana ƙarin sharhi game da bayanan asibiti na tsohon Ministan Lafiya Manto Tshabalala-Msimang bisa ga matsayinta na mutum.[34] Kotuna, duk da haka, sun yanke shawarar cewa kare jama'a yana da ƙarancin nauyi idan abubuwan da ake nema a buga su suna da yanayin sirri.

Dokar alamar kasuwanci

gyara sashe

Hukuncin Kotun Tsarin Mulki a cikin Laugh It Off Promotions v South African Breweries [35] an amince da shi a matsayin babban hukunci kan dangantakar da ke tsakanin dokar alamar kasuwanci da 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki a cikin ikon Ingilishi. Yawancin sun riƙe cewa tanadin Dokar Alamar Kasuwanci wanda ke neman hana narkewar sanannun alamun kasuwanci dole ne a fassara shi a hanyar da ta fi dacewa da 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki. An gano cewa alamar kasuwanci ta giya ta Carling Black Label a kan T-shirts da aka sayar don riba ba ta haifar da yiwuwar tattalin arziki ko cinikayya ga mai mallakar alamar kasuwanci ba, don haka bai kai ga keta alamar kasuwanci ba. Ko amfani da alamar kasuwanci ba tare da izini ba ya kai ga furcin da aka kare an riƙe shi a matsayin tsakiya ga wannan ƙuduri.

Masu sharhi sun ba da shawarar cewa fassarar karimci game da tsaron da ke akwai ga da'awar keta haƙƙin mallaka zai isa ya ba da la'akari da 'yancin magana. Kotuna sun ci gaba da cewa sha'awar jama'a, da kuma 'yanci, aiki da alhakin kafofin watsa labarai, a wasu yanayi na iya wuce la'akari game da haƙƙin mallaka.

Magana ta kasuwanci

gyara sashe

SCA a cikin British American Tobacco South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Ministan Lafiya [36] ya amince da cewa magana ta kasuwanci ta zama furcin kariya. Yayinda suke gargadi game da "rarrabawar da aka kirkira tsakanin darajar nau'ikan magana daban-daban", kotuna sun kammala cewa iyakokin magana ta kasuwanci sun fi dacewa fiye da iyakokin wasu nau'ikan bayyanawa.[37]

A cikin City of Cape Town v Ad Outpost (Pty) Ltd, [37] dokar da ta sanya cikakkiyar haramtacciyar haramtacciya a kan tallace-tallace ta wani ɓangare na uku a kan wani gida an kashe ta bisa la'akari da cewa akwai hanyoyin da ba su da iyaka don cimma manufar dokar. Sabanin haka, an gudanar da buƙatar izinin da aka yi a baya don kafa allon talla da ake gani daga titi ko wurin jama'a don ci gaba da halattaccen, mai mahimmanci da gaggawa na inganta lafiyar zirga-zirga da kyawawan birane.[38] Tattaunawar manufofin jama'a sun fito fili a matsayin wani ɓangare na hujja ta SCA don kammalawa a cikin Taba na Burtaniya cewa haramtacciyar haramtacciya akan tallace-tallace da inganta samfuran taba yana da ma'ana kuma yana da adalci. An gano haramcin da Dokar Kula da Kayayyakin Taba ta sanya "hanya daya tilo da za a magance" mummunan tasirin lafiyar jama'a na shan sigari, musamman a cikin hasken wajibai na Afirka ta Kudu a karkashin Yarjejeniyar Tsarin WHO kan Kula da Taba.[36]

manazarta

gyara sashe
  1. ↑ "Case and Another v Minister of Safety and Security and Others 1996 (3) SA 617 (CC)".
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 "S v Mamabolo 2001 (3) SA 409 (CC)". Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Mamabolo" defined multiple times with different content
  3. ↑ "BDS South Africa v Continental Outdoor Media (Pty) Ltd 2015 (1) SA 462 (GJ)".
  4. ↑ "Islamic Unity Convention v Independent Broadcasting Authority and Others 2002 (4) SA 294".
  5. ↑ "De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division) and Others 2004 (1) SA 406 (CC)".
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 "Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another 2021 (6) SA 579 (CC)". Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Q" defined multiple times with different content
  7. ↑ "Afriforum v Economic Freedom Fighters 2022 (6) SA 357".
  8. ↑ "Afriforum and Another v Malema and Others 2011 (6) SA 240 (EqC)".
  9. ↑ "South African Human Rights Commission obo South African Jewish Board of Deputies v Masuku and Another 2022 (4) SA 1 (CC)".
  10. ↑ "Afriforum NPC v Nelson Mandela Foundation Trust 2023 (4) SA 1 (SCA)".
  11. ↑ "S v Hoho 2009 (1) SACR 276 (SCA)".
  12. ↑ "Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another 2021 (1) SACR 387 (CC)".
  13. ↑ "Moyo and Another v Minister of Police and Others 2020 (1) SACR 373 (CC)".
  14. ↑ "Khumalo and Others v Holomisa 2002 (5) SA 401 (CC)".
  15. ↑ "National Media Ltd and Others v Bogoshi 1998 (4) SA 1196 (SCA)".
  16. ↑ "Media 24 Ltd and Others v SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd 2011 (5) SA 329 (SCA)".
  17. ↑ "Reddell and Others v Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others 2023 (2) SA 404 (CC)".
  18. ↑ "Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Reddell and Others 2023 (2) SA 68 (CC))".
  19. ↑ "Phillips and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others 2003 (3) SA 345 (CC)".
  20. ↑ "Print Media South Africa and Another v Minister of Home Affairs 2012 (6) SA 443 (CC)".
  21. ↑ "Nel v Le Roux 1996 (3) SA 562 (CC)".
  22. ↑ "Bosasa Operation (Pty) Ltd v Basson and Another 2013 (2) SA 570 (GSJ)".
  23. ↑ "AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others; Minister of Police v AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Others 2021 (3) SA 246 (CC)".
  24. ↑ "Independent Newspapers (Pty) Ltd v Minister for Intelligence Services 2008 (5) SA 31 (CC)".
  25. ↑ "Johncom Media Investments Limited v M and Others 2009 (4) SA 7 (CC)".
  26. ↑ "Mail and Guardian Media Ltd and Others v Chipu N.O. and Others 2013 (6) SA 367 (CC)".
  27. ↑ "Arena Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Financial Mail and Others v South African Revenue Service and Others 2023 (5) SA 319 (CC)".
  28. ↑ "Midi Television (Pty) Ltd t/a e-TV v Director of Public Prosecutions (Western Cape) 2007 (5) SA 540 (SCA)".
  29. ↑ "Dotcom Trading 121 (Pty) Ltd t/a Live Africa Network News v King NO & Others 2000 (4) SA 973 (C)" (PDF).
  30. ↑ "South African Broadcasting Corporation Limited v Thatcher and Others [2005] 4 All SA 353 (C)".
  31. ↑ "Multichoice (Proprietary) Limited and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another [2014] 2 All SA 446 (GP)".
  32. ↑ "Van Breda v Media 24 Limited and Others; National Director of Public Prosecutions v Media 24 Limited and Others 2017 (2) SACR 491 (SCA)".
  33. ↑ 2002 (6) SA 714 (T)
  34. ↑ "Tshabalala-Msimang and Another v Makhanya and Others 2008 (6) SA 102 (W)".
  35. ↑ "Laugh It Off Promotions CC v South African Breweries International (Finance) BV t/a SABMark International 2006 (1) SA 144 (CC)".
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 "British American Tobacco South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Health [2012] 3 All SA 593 (SCA)". Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "bat" defined multiple times with different content
  37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 2000 (2) SA 733 (C).
  38. ↑ North Central Local Council and South Central Local Council v Roundabout Outdoor (Pty) Ltd & Others 2002 (2) SA 625 (D).
Daga "https://ha.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%27Yanci_na_faɗar_albarkacin_baki_a_Afirka_ta_Kudu&oldid=463673"