WSU Student Death Case: Family Fights Court Order Blocking Media Coverage

Family Takes Stand Against Media Blackout in WSU Student Death Case

The fallout from the fatal student protest at Walter Sisulu University (WSU) isn't confined to campus. Sisonke Mbolekwa’s family is now fighting a legal battle just as wrenching as the events that claimed his life. After a court blocked the media from covering the murder proceedings against residence manager Manelisi Mapane, the family's voices have surged to the forefront, demanding transparency and public scrutiny.

Mbolekwa’s death during a demonstration in Mthatha has already cast a harsh spotlight on university safety and protest management. Allegations point to Mapane firing the shot that killed the young student—charges that will be tested in court. But what makes this case different from many others is not just the violence, but how the fight for open justice is playing out long before the trial.

The court cited privacy and the emotional sensitivity of the situation when it shut out cameras and reporters last week. Yet, Mbolekwa’s relatives say they weren’t even consulted—a detail that’s only ramped up their frustration. Piaba Madokwe, speaking for the family, insists their interests were used as an excuse for secrecy, rather than a true reason. "We are told the previous judgment was based on protecting families," Madokwe said. "But that wasn’t our view, and no one asked."

In a move rarely seen in cases like this, the family has sent affidavits to the court supporting the media’s right to be present. They want the world—not just people in the courtroom—to witness developments as Mapane heads to his bail hearing scheduled for May 6, 2025. To them, the ability of friends, distant relatives, and especially fellow students to follow the case in real time is non-negotiable. It’s about giving a voice to those who can’t travel to Mthatha, and about holding everyone—victim and accused—fully accountable.

Transparency, Trust, and Tensions on Campus

This push for media access doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The WSU student death has become a flashpoint in much larger debates: how universities handle dissent, what happens when staff become part of violent escalations, and the extent to which institutions should be held to public scrutiny. Students have criticized WSU’s response for being slow and opaque. Meanwhile, university officials remain under fire for campus security breaches and unclear communications about what went wrong during the protests.

Open courtrooms are usually taken as a given in South Africa—especially in cases that capture public interest. Legal experts say closing them off should only happen for compelling reasons like protecting minors or witnesses at risk. But here, the judge argued that shutting out the media would help shield families from unwanted attention. The Mbolekwa family’s appeal argues the exact opposite: Only sunlight can keep things honest. They believe that accountability means not allowing proceedings to slip quietly out of public view.

This fight over coverage is bound to shape what happens next. If the court reverses its earlier ban, reporters and cameras could return when Mapane appears for his bail hearing this spring. That could also set a precedent for other high-profile cases—especially those where survivors and victims’ families demand the right to decide how justice is witnessed.

For now, as lawyers prepare arguments and emotions run high, one thing is clear: the struggle over who gets to watch justice unfold may prove just as important as the verdict itself.