26 Apr 13 | Newswire
South Africa’s parliament yesterday approved a controversial bill aimed at protecting state secrets. Dubbed the “secrecy bill” by its critics, the Protection of State Information bill was passed by 189 votes to 74. Campaigners against the bill warned of the “chilling effect” it could create for anyone fighting to bring government corruption to light.
The Right2Know campaign has been working against the bill since its introduction in 2010, and has vowed to continue fighting against the bill, which now must be signed by Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s president, in order to go into effect. Although the bill was amended last year to include a clause on public interest, the campaign says that the modified bill still “only has narrow protection for whistleblowers and public advocates”. Right2Know also criticised the bill’s vague language — which they say could possibly endanger whistleblowers and journalists.
Writing for Index on Censorship last year, Nobel laureate Nadine Gordimer said that the bill “must be discarded in its entirety.”
More on this story:
26 Apr 13 | South Africa
South Africa’s parliament yesterday approved a controversial bill aimed at protecting state secrets. Dubbed the “secrecy bill” by its critics, the Protection of State Information bill was passed by 189 votes to 74. Campaigners against the bill warned of the “chilling effect” it could create for anyone fighting to bring government corruption to light.
The Right2Know campaign has been working against the bill since its introduction in 2010, and has vowed to continue fighting against the bill, which now must be signed by Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s president, in order to go into effect. Although the bill was amended last year to include a clause on public interest, the campaign says that the modified bill still “only has narrow protection for whistleblowers and public advocates”. Right2Know also criticised the bill’s vague language — which they say could possibly endanger whistleblowers and journalists.
Writing for Index on Censorship last year, Nobel laureate Nadine Gordimer said that the bill “must be discarded in its entirety.”
More on this story:
12 Dec 12 | Africa, South Africa
South Africa’s highest court, the Constitutional Court, last week agreed to hear an application about a motion of no confidence in President Jacob Zuma. A High Court judge’s findings suggested that “the public are entitled to hear the debate” as the Constitution enjoins South Africans to prevent the suppression of “the dignity of even a single voice expressing a different perspective”.
The ruling African National Congress (ANC) in November used its parliamentary majority to shut down a no confidence debate assessing ANC leader Jacob Zuma’s continued suitability for the job of president of South Africa. Section 102 of South Africa’s Constitution allows for a vote on a motion of no confidence in parliament’s National Assembly. If, after debate, the motion is passed, the president, cabinet and deputy ministers have to resign.
No confidence debate will discuss Zuma’s suitability as president (Jordi Matas – Demotix)
In its rejection of opposition parties’ proposal, the ANC argued that the motion would be “frivolous” as its aim was “to try the President in a court of public opinion and tarnish his image and that of the ANC in the media”.
Eight of the eleven opposition parties in parliament, led by the official opposition Democratic Alliance, brought an urgent application in the Western Cape High Court to instruct the speaker of parliament to allow the motion. Judge Dennis Davis could not find in the applicants’ favour, as the rules of parliament do not make provision for no confidence motions.
However, he added that “when political parties, who represent approximately a third of the electorate, decide to initiate a motion, and to seek wider support for the motion on matters of such importance, that too is their right.
“The […] people are entitled, as citizens of South Africa, to hear what our national representatives have to say about a matter of such pressing importance. Of course, once the debate takes place and reasoned voices across the floor are heard, the majority may well vote the matter down and that would be the end of it. But what cannot be justified is that the debate should not be allowed to take place.”
Meanwhile, the ANC changed its position and “welcomed” the debate, but proposed that it only takes place during the next parliamentary session in February 2013.
The party is currently engaged in a bruising jockeying for positions in the run-up to its elective conference in December, where Zuma’s deputy, Kgalema Motlanthe, may challenge him. The opposition to the debate suggested that Zuma’s hold on the party may be more tenuous than his allies want others to believe. His parliamentary lieutenants seem to have realised this, prompting their volte-face on the debate. Their insistence on scheduling the debate next year nevertheless still suggests fear that it may worsen intra-party divisions.
Opposition parties’ application to the Constitutional Court will be heard in March next year.
21 Nov 12 | Africa, South Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa
South Africa’s Right2Know Campaign (R2K) is “Camping out for Openness” outside parliament in Cape Town this week as deliberations over the draconian Protection of State Information Bill draw to a close.
The National Council of Provinces, the second house of parliament, is due to adopt the bill by the end of November. The bill is ostensibly aimed at instituting a long-overdue system to regulate access to government documents.
However, despite persistent appeals from, among others, luminaries such as Nobel Laureate Nadine Gordimer, the Secrecy Bill’s system of classification and declassification has not been couched in the country’s constitutional commitment to an open democracy and the free flow of information.
Instead it opens the door to the over-classification of state information while instituting harsh punishments for the possession of classified information, undermining basic citizenship rights.
Pressure from civil society, led by the R2K Campaign, produced limited concessions this year. One of the most pertinent demands was to include a public interest defence clause to ameliorate the anti-democratic effects of the bill. The ruling African National Congress (ANC) eventually conceded by allowing a clause enabling a public interest defence, but only if the disclosure revealed criminal activity. This has been criticised as an unreasonably high threshold.
Right2Know march in Pretoria, South Africa, September 2012. Jordi Matas | Demotix
The ANC this month backtracked on two other key concessions, as pressure from state security minister Siyabonga Cwele on ANC parliamentarians seemingly paid off:
- The Secrecy Bill at first took precedence over the Promotion of Access of Information Act (PAIA). PAIA allows citizens to request information from government agencies. The ANC then agreed to an amendment that would give PAIA precedence. This decision was again overturned after pressure from Cwele. Activists argue that allowing the Secrecy Bill to trump PAIA is unconstitutional, as PAIA is prescribed by the constitution and has to remain the supreme law in access to information matters.
- A five-year sentence for disclosing classified information has been reintroduced after the ANC agreed to have it removed. This will actively discourage whistleblowers in the civil service from coming forward with information revealing corruption.
Cwele’s predecessor, Ronnie Kasrils, this week addressed the R2K camp outside parliament, distancing himself from what he deemed the “devious” and “toxic” bill. While he was minister, he withdrew the 2008 version of the bill after a similar outcry about its lack of constitutionality.
According to R2K, the other remaining problems with the Secrecy Bill include:
- It criminalises citizens instead of holding to account civil servants who are responsible for keeping secrets.
- A whistleblower, journalist or activist disclosing classified information with the purpose of revealing corruption or other criminal activity can still be prosecuted under the “espionage” and related offences clauses to avoid them invoking the limited public interest defence.
- Persons in possession of classified state information face draconian jail terms of up to 25 years.
- The bill’s procedure to apply for the declassification of information conflicts with PAIA, while the newly created Classification Review Panel is not sufficiently independent: “The simple possession of classified information appears to be illegal even pending a request for declassification and access.”
- Someone can be prosecuted for “espionage”, “receiving state information unlawfully” (to benefit a foreign state), and “hostile activity” even without proof that the accused intended to benefit a foreign state or hostile group or prejudice national security — only that the accused knew this would be a “direct or indirect” result.
- Information classified under apartheid law and policies that may be counter to the constitution remain classified, pending a review for which no time limit is set.
Parliament’s engagement with the bill, which started in July 2010, has been characterised by Orwellian “doublethink”, as exemplified in Cwele’s declaration that “protect(ing) sensitive information … is the oil that lubricates our democracy and we have no intention — not today, not ever — to undermine the freedom we struggled and sacrificed for all these years”.
R2K has vowed to continue pressuring parliamentarians to replace the Secrecy Bill with a law “that genuinely reflects a just balance between the public’s right to know and [the] government’s need to protect limited state information”.
Christi van der Westhuizen is Index on Censorship’s new South Africa correspondent
More on this story:
