A filmed road rage incident which had more than 1.2-million views and led to an assault case, as well as a protection order by the alleged offender against the witness who captured the footage, stalled in the Randburg magistrate's court this week.
The incident occurred in February when school driver Zandi — a single mom who asked not to be identified for her safety — skidded on a wet road into the back of education specialist Candice Adams' car.
Writer Jo Watson saw the incident and pulled over to help. She filmed Adams allegedly punching Zandi in the face and called out “stop beating that woman”.
The video clip shows Adams turning on Watson, allegedly verbally assaulting her and punching Watson's passenger window.
Watson, who has a large following on social media, posted descriptions of the attack in the hopes of making contact with the victim. This led to her being contacted by Zandi, who had been injured and traumatised in the incident. She left the scene without getting Adams’s details, and was grateful to Watson..
Armed with the footage and details of the alleged attacker and her car, Zandi was able to open an assault case, which led to Adams being arrested and charged.
On Wednesday this week, Adams made her second court appearance before magistrate Clement Mukhodobwane, who postponed the matter to May 6 for further investigation.
Mukhodobwane declined the Sunday Times permission to have a photographer in court on the grounds Adams had not been given prior warning of their application, which she later opposed. He said the application could be resubmitted in May when Adams could give reasons for her objection.
Meanwhile, more than two weeks after the incident, Adams had a protection order served against witness Watson. This came after Watson was contacted by the Sunday Times and provided the video — on condition Zandi's face was blurred — for it to be published with the story on the road rage incident.
In her protection order, Adams claimed Watson had been “harassing” her by posting discussions about the incident on social media. Watson was threatened with arrest for speaking further about Adams.
On Thursday, the matter came before the Randburg magistrate’s court for a decision on whether the order should be dismissed or made permanent. Watson filed her response to Adam's application two weeks ago. On Thursday Adams wanted more time to file her reply to Watson.
I fear for my safety as I [am] a subject of social media abuse. The respondent is tarnishing my reputation on a public platform
— Candice Adams, who was filmed allegedly assaulting another driver
The protection order, which the Sunday Times obtained from a legal source, lists Adams' demands against Watson as:
- Not to “threaten, harass or intimidate me”;
- “Not publish anything related to this application on any social media platform, both print and digital”;
- “Remove all posts pertaining to myself and the incident”; and
- “Stop engaging her followers and my colleagues and staff members”.
In her application, Adams claims Watson discussed the incident “in depth, pushing all blame onto myself ... paints a picture that I am 100% at fault and the driver that rear-ended me is completely innocent”.
She claims Watson posted a video of the incident “without notifying me or receiving my permission”. Adams claimed Watson “used her contact with a journalist at the Sunday Times to not only publish an article, she arranged for the journalist to arrive at my place of work on a Friday”.
Adams added: “Frustrated by not finding me, the journalist, under Jo’s instruction, proceeded to show the video that Jo Watson recorded. As a result of these videos I have been placed on forced leave until further notice. My network of colleagues and clients have been affected negatively and on an immense level. It’s damaging and cruel.”
As motivation for issuing the protection order as a matter of urgency, Adams said: “I fear for my safety as I have now become a subject of social media badgering and abuse. The respondent does not know me at all, yet she is tarnishing my reputation and character on a public platform.”
When the matter was called, Adams’ lawyer — who identified herself to the court as N Moola — objected to the Sunday Times’ presence.
Magistrate Palesa Setshedi instructed the Sunday Times to leave the courtroom and, after being asked on what grounds this ruling was made, she said the journalist should file an application to the court to find out the reason. She also ordered a lawyer representing the Campaign for Free Expression (CFE), who was attending as friend of the court, to also leave.
Despite Watson’s legal team being ready to proceed, Setshedi postponed the matter to June 10. She declined to give reasons and extended Adams’ protection order.
“To be accused of something I absolutely did not do, is not a good feeling. But I have the truth on my side, and I will keep going until I clear my name,” Watson said, after the brief hearing.
“This is sad to admit, but having something like this happen almost makes you not want to do the right thing the next time. It’s easier to just turn a blind eye.”
CFE executive director Nicole Fritz said this wsa a “disturbing” development. “Our constitution and judicial system are premised on the principle of open justice — that our courts and their processes be transparent, accountable and subject to scrutiny. Of course, there are circumstances which demand exception — but where those exist, they compel justification.
“In the case of harassment orders, there may well be justification to insist that victims of harassment be shielded from public identification. But as here, where there is real reason for concern that the harassment order is sought not for protection from harassment but in order to be shielded from responsibility for wrongdoing, the principle of open justice should apply and departures from it rigorously justified.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.