In the face of increasing support for the liberation movement the South African regime intensified its efforts to prevent SWAPO's views and policies becoming known to the Namibian public. This hardening of policy was demonstrated in a series of actions against the *Windhoek Observer* newspaper, noted for its outspoken pro-independence editorial line. The threat of permanent closure forced the newspaper to submit to a number of restrictive policy guidelines. By the end of September the paper's management and staff had split over how to respond to government pressure. It seemed as if the main source of information about South African repression of the Namibian people had been silenced.
Since it was launched in 1978 the *Windhoek Observer* has come under frequent attack from the regime for its policy of reporting fully on SWAPO's activities, which get little coverage in the rest of the media, and its determination to expose atrocities in the war zones as well as corruption and maladministration in government. During 1984, with increasing censorship of all information, suppression of the Observer intensified and a number of issues were banned under the South African Publications Act (see FOCUS 48 p.8, 52 p.4, 53 p.11 and Briefing Paper No. 14, Repression and Resistance in Namibia 1983-84).
SELF-CENSORSHIP In both South Africa and Namibia the primary instrument for exercising control of newspapers is not the Publications Act. This relates only to those papers which have not been officially registered. The majority, those published by members of the Newspaper Press Union (NPU), censor themselves through the South African Media Council (formerly the Press Council). This is responsible for enforcing a strict code of conduct – which binds all newspaper proprietors. The state thus exercises effective but indirect control of the press. In March 1984 Hannes Smith, editor of the *Windhoek Observer*, withdrew from membership of the NPU.
Smith's resignation followed the Press Council's adjudication of a complaint made against the *Windhoek Observer* by a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church in Walvis Bay. The main charge alleged obscenity and related to the Observer's use of 'p:n-up' photographs to boost its circulation. Smith was called before the NPU to explain his reporting of the Council's ruling which had gone against him; instead, he resigned from the organisation (CT 21.3.84).
Smith's resignation had two immediate effects on the newspaper – it was laid open to banning under the Publications Act and it was obliged to register officially as a newspaper. Between March and August 1984 the Publications Act was invoked to ban eight issues of the newspaper on the grounds of either obscenity or endangering the security of the state, culminating in the outright ban imposed in August (DD 14.8.84; RDM 15.8.84).
CONTROL BY REGISTRATION On 10 August the newspaper received a response to its request for registration under the Newspaper and Imprint Registration Act: the Administrator General required a deposit of R20,000 before this could be effected. This is the maximum amount which may be demanded in terms of the Internal Security Act (No. 44 of 1950) which is still used in Namibia although it has been superseded in South Africa by the 1982 Act. The deposit is forfeited to the state if the newspaper is subsequently banned. This was thought to be the first time that the maximum deposit had been demanded and was seen as an attempt to cripple the paper financially (WO 11.8.84, WA 14.8.84).
On 15 August the *Windhoek Observer* of 4 August, plus all subsequent issues, were banned. An immediate appeal was launched. A number of organisations condemned the action – many international bodies, trade unions and newspaper groups as well as the UN Council for Namibia. In addition, the move was criticised by the U.S. State Department (WA 17.8.84, 22.8.84).
On 27-28 August the Publications Appeal Board met in Pretoria under the chairmanship of Professor Kobus van Rooyen. Plans for Namibia to have its own board had reportedly failed for financial reasons (WA 20.8.84). Counsel for the *Windhoek Observer* challenged the composition of the Board and criticised the facts that South African individuals and institutions continue to decide matters for Namibia. The Chairman appoints members to the Board from a list drawn up by the State President (RDM 29.8.84).
ARGUING THE CASE The main arguments in the case centred on the alleged support given to SWAPO by the Windhoek Observer and in particular to what extent this was support for the strategy of armed struggle. Evidence was led in respect of the reasons for banning particular issues of the paper as well as for the subsequent total ban. The question of obscenity was dealt with but was described by the Chairman of the Board as not being 'the crux of the issue' (WA 20.8.84).
The *Windhoek Observer* did not deny that it gave prominence to the views and opinions of SWAPO. It defended this as a legitimate and necessary role in view of the anti-SWAPO line carried by the rest of the media. It led evidence to show that all parties in Namibia, including the South African regime, accepted that there could be no settlement in Namibia without SWAPO. For this reason it was in the long term interest of Namibia's security that SWAPO's views should be publicised (WO 1.9.84).
Professor Andre du Pisani, head of Political Science at the University of South Africa (UNISA) testified that the characterisation of SWAPO as a 'terrorist' organisation committed to pursuing independence only through armed struggle was a false one, at variance with known facts. SWAPO was a legal organisation within Namibia working for an independence settlement based on UN Security Council Resolution 435. The May issues of the *Windhoek Observer*, which were banned for 'endangering state security', in fact had extensive reports on the settlement talks in Lusaka between SWAPO and the Administrator General: an occasion in which SWAPO was engaged in a non-combative role.
The Appeal Board accepted that SWAPO had a 'dualistic' nature and accordingly lifted the ban on the two issues, stating that praise for SWAPO in this context did not imply support for armed struggle but for its role as a 'negotiating political organisation' (WO 8.9.84).
WITNESS DISCREDITED Evidence for the state was provided by Professor V. Roelofse, also of UNISA, who was quickly discredited. Roelofse is a member of the National Party and former political journalist with the pro-government newspaper *Die Transvaler*. He had conducted a 'scientific analysis of all issues of the *Windhoek Observer* published between January 1982 and August 1983. However, his assessment of the paper as 'revolutionary' lost credibility when it became clear that the whole study had been conceived and executed in just one week at the specific request of the Board (WA 29.8.84).
In its judgement, the Publications Appeal Board lifted the permanent ban on the Observer as well as lifting some of the individual bans. Only one issue (26 May) was banned for supporting the armed struggle. However, the newspaper was warned that 'it moves on the verge of undesirability in its pro-SWAPO articles' (WO 8.9.84).
Within Namibia the Administrator General has the power to over-rule the decisions of both the Publications Committee and the Appeal Board. Van Niekerk decided it was not 'proper to interfere with the prescribed legal procedure'. However, he subsequently issued a proclamation raising the maximum deposit required for registration from R20,000 to R40,000, so bringing Namibia into line with South Africa (RDM 17.8.84, 21.8.84).
Meanwhile the management of the *Windhoek Observer* planned to launch a new paper 'The Nation'. The paper's owner, real estate businessman Thurston Salt, applied to register the paper and join the NPU. The Administrator General demanded a deposit of R40,000 (WA 23/31.8.84).
At the same time as lifting the ban, the Publications Appeal Board issued a number of guidelines with which the Observer was obliged to comply in order to avoid future banning. Initially the editor described these as 'surprisingly generous and overwhelmingly sympathetic' but as the demands began to be implemented it was clear that they were fundamental. The R20,000 already deposited gave the paper's ownership a financial incentive for keeping the paper unbanned. Within weeks these factors had caused a rift between management and staff, leaving the paper's editor siding with the owner against the majority of staff (RDM 20.9.84).
The Appeal Board had accepted that there had already been a 'marked reduction in the political tone of publication insofar as the SWAPO statements were concerned' after the May bannings. Subsequent changes would mute its line even further. The paper announced plans to open a Pretoria office staffed by a legal representative responsible for liaison with the South African government — apparently to obtain clearance from the regime before publication (WO 8/15.9.84).
MANAGEMENT SUCCUMBS The management then moved against its political editor, Gwen Lister — her weekly political column was dropped and she was demoted to staff reporter. The Observer's reputation had been built on the quality of Lister's analysis and commentary since she had left the Windhoek Advertiser with Smith in 1978 to start the Observer. Staff rallied in support of Lister. On 19 September when she resigned from the paper, nine of her 11 colleagues went with her. Thurston Salt, whose views were reported more prominently as the crisis developed, said he was glad to get rid of some of them whom he described as 'dead wood'. In another act of solidarity Gail Visagie, the journalist named as prospective editor of 'The Nation', resigned in protest at Lister's demotion. Plans for black readers to boycott the Observer, if Smith succeeded in producing it alone, were also announced. In August the readership of the paper was estimated to be 27,000, almost half of them black (RDM 20.9.84).
