The Campaign for Free Expression has warned against the State Security Agency’s attempt to exclude the media and public from the corruption trial of two former senior intelligence officials, saying open justice is vital to restoring trust in the country’s security services
The attempt by the State Security Agency (SSA) to secure a blanket ban on media and public access to the corruption trial of two former senior intelligence officials should raise concern, the Campaign for Free Expression (CFE) has warned, after the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria ruled on access to documents in the case.
CFE executive director Nicole Fritz said the court outcome was a victory for open justice, particularly at a time when South Africa’s law enforcement agencies and security services face allegations of criminal infiltration and have been scrutinised by high-level inquiries.
“The granting of this application helps restore the principle of open justice, so essential to the legitimacy of our criminal justice system and the courts themselves. That would be true at any time but it is especially true at this moment in South Africa’s history,” she said.
Fritz cautioned, however, that the SSA had sought the complete exclusion of the media and public from the proceedings in a separate application on Wednesday.
“It seems to me improper that the SSA would even have asked for an order that our highest court has long indicated will not be countenanced: a blanket exclusion of the public and media from court proceedings,” she said.
Fritz said the outcome was consistent with the Constitution and reflected the media’s vigilance and persistence.
News24 editor-in-chief Adriaan Basson described the outcome as a major victory for the media in challenging secrecy surrounding the trial. “This is hopefully a lesson for the State Security Agency and National Prosecuting Authority to respect the Constitution and freedom of the media when they conduct similar trials in future,” he said. The application was brought by Media24, amaBhungane, Daily Maverick, Mail & Guardian and the CFE after the state secured an order restricting public access to parts of the trial of former SSA officials Thulani Dlomo and Patrick Mshothola.
Dlomo, the SSA’s former deputy director for counter-intelligence, and Mshothola, a project manager in its chief directorate for special operations, face charges of theft, fraud, forgery and uttering involving about R12-million linked to Korolo Investment Holdings in 2014.
The two men, who headed the chief directorate for special operations between 2012 and 2017, were arrested on 30 November 2025. Their prosecution is the first of SSA personnel arising from the findings of the High Level Review Panel and the Zondo commission.
The state initially applied, without notifying the media or the public, to have parts of the trial heard behind closed doors.
The order, granted on or about 14 October, restricted access to evidence involving SSA members, the agency’s operational methods and classified documents. It also identified documents to be withheld and required the record to remain confidential.
Three trial days subsequently pro-ceeded without the media or public present. A Media24 journalist was refused entry to the public gallery, while requests for access to the State’s application went unanswered. The media organisations challenged the restrictions, arguing that open justice should be the rule and secrecy the exception.
In its court papers, the M&G argued that the Constitution pro-tects freedom of expression, including press freedom and the right to receive and impart information. It also pointed to constitutional pro-tections for access to information and public hearings, as well as the Criminal Procedure Act’s presumption that criminal proceedings take place in open court.
“Any limitation must be justified. A restriction on access limits sections 16(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, and the party seeking restricted access bears the burden of justifying it under section 36(1). The enquiry covers the nature of the right, the extent of the limitation, the importance of its purpose, the relation between the two, and the availability of less restrictive means,” the papers state.
The media argued that closing proceedings required particularised evidence of a real risk of harm to national security. They sought access to the State’s application, redacted copies of the listed documents, redacted transcripts of future closed sessions and notice of any further application to restrict access.
On Wednesday, the SSA separately counter-applied for the complete exclusion of the media and public from the remainder of the evidence. The Mail & Guardian, represented by advocate Nicola Soekoe, instructed by Rupert Candy Attorneys Incorporated, intervened as a co-applicant, seeking access to the original application and to the record of proceedings and any future material that might be sealed from the public.
Judge Mashudu Munzhelele declined to order the production of the state’s original application. However, following a request from the M&G, the SSA disclosed a redacted copy.
The media were also shown an index of the disputed documents and told they could access the contract and three invoices. The court’s order provides for access to documents, subject to redactions.