JURIST - Paper Chase: Sunday, August 8, 2010

[JURIST] South African journalists on Sunday expressed disdain [statement] for proposed media regulations that they claim will inhibit freedom of expression and media freedom. A declaration by South African Press Council [official website] chairman Raymond Louw criticizing the regulation was published in every major South African newspaper. Louw said he was "appalled" that the African National Congress (ANC) and the South African Communist Party (SACP) [party websites] are proposing a statutory media appeals tribunal. In regard to the regulation, he said:

It has nothing to do with promoting press freedom but everything to do with the way the press reports on the conduct of governance including the conduct of cabinet ministers and other senior officials of the party. They don't want the public to be told of their poor governance, corruption by "tenderpreneurs'' and lavish life-styles. They want the press to report the African National Congress's version of what is happening.

The appeals tribunal would adjudicate complaints [AFP report] on media stories and hold journalists legally accountable. The South African parliament is already considering a Protection of Information Bill, which journalists fear will hamper investigative reporting. Recently, there have been many reports on lavish spending on luxury vehicles by ANC leader and South African President Jacob Zuma [BBC profile; JURIST news archive].

The ANC won [JURIST report] control of the South African government in April 2009 but failed to win the two-thirds majority needed to change or amend the country's constitution and pass legislation on its own. This is not the first sign of tension between the ANC and the South African media. In 2005, the Johannesburg High Court banned the release [JURIST report] of a newspaper article revealing a corruption scandal involving the nation's ruling ANC, requiring South Africa's leading independent newspaper, the Mail and Guardian [media website], to prevent the distribution of its entire 45,000 issue run.

[JURIST] A Turkish court on Friday annulled the arrest warrants issued for 102 Turkish military officers over an alleged 2003 coup plot. The officers, including 25 generals and admirals, were arrested last month [JURIST report] for allegedly participating in a coup plot referred to as "Operation Sledgehammer" [Al Jazeera backgrounder] after the Justice and Democracy Party (AKP) [party website], which has Islamic roots, came into power in 2002. The group planned to bomb mosques, increase tensions with Greece and cause political unrest to create interest in the public in overthrowing the party, which has unseated four Turkish governments since 1960 and promotes secularism. A total of 196 suspects were initially charged [JURIST report], and the trial for those remaining will begin on December 16 [Al Jazeera report]. The Turkish government issued the arrest warrants last month after authorities discovered the plot and brought those involved into custody, including Cetin Dogan, a four-star general who allegedly was in charge of the plot. Dogan was hospitalized for heart problems the day following his arrest.

Mass arrests of those involved in the coup plot began in February [JURIST report]. The Turkish courts are also conducting a trial [JURIST report] of 33 retired and active naval officers accused of a coup attempt in connection with a group called Ergenekon [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. The accused were indicted in March [JURIST report] for allegedly planning to assassinate prominent members of Turkey's Christian and Jewish minority groups and blame Islamic terrorists for the deaths in order to weaken the AKP. If convicted, the Ergenekon defendants could face sentences ranging between seven-and-a-half and 15 years in prison. Trials against the Ergenekon group began two years ago [JURIST report] and nearly 200 people have been charged in connection with the alleged plot.

[JURIST] Elena Kagan [official profile; JURIST news archive] was sworn in [video] as the 112th justice of the US Supreme Court [official website] Saturday. Kagan, the former US Solicitor General and dean of Harvard Law School [official websites], took part in two ceremonies [AFP report]—a private one for her friends and family, and a public ceremony. Chief Justice John Roberts [official profile] administered the oath [press release], in which Kagan swore to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich," while placing her hand on a Bible owned by Justice Stephen Breyer [NPR report]. Kagan is replacing Justice John Paul Stevens [Oyez profile], who announced his retirement [JURIST report] in April. President Barack Obama [official profile] did not attend the ceremony, but held a separate reception [WH blog] on Friday where he compared Kagan to former justice Thurgood Marshall [Oyez profile], citing her intellect and "path-breaking career." Kagan, who served as clerk to the former justice, stressed the importance of her appointment to the Court:

[T]his appointment is not just an honor. Much more importantly, it is an obligation -- an obligation to protect and preserve the rule of law in this country; an obligation to uphold the rights and liberties afforded by our remarkable Constitution; and an obligation to provide what the inscription on the Supreme Court building promises: equal justice under the law.

Kagan will join the other Supreme Court justices on the bench for the court's fall term after her formal investiture ceremony scheduled for October 1. Kagan's appointment is not expected to change the balance of the current court, which has taken on a more conservative ideology in recent years. Kagan will join associate justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg [Oyez profiles] as the third female member of the Roberts court and the fourth female justice in the court's history.

The US Senate [official website] confirmed Kagan to her position [JURIST report] on the court by a 63-37 vote [roll call vote] on Thursday. The vote fell largely along party lines, with five Republicans voting in her favor and one Democrat voting against her. Republican senator Scott Brown (R-MA) [official website] cited Kagan's lack of judicial experience as his reason for opposing her confirmation, while other senators like Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Nebraska senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) [official websites] called her an activist and disagreed with her opposition during her time as dean at Harvard Law School to allow military recruiters access to students. Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 [JURIST report] to send Kagan's nomination to the full Senate for consideration after delaying its vote [JURIST report] at Sessions' request due to his concerns over Kagan's positions on legislation during her time working for the Clinton administration. Obama nominated Kagan [JURIST report] for the position this past May.