INLSA
Motlanthe
Gaye Davis
Political Bureau
AN 11th-hour appeal to Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe yesterday asked him to intervene to forestall today’s National Assembly vote on the Protection of State Information Bill, while the SA National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) urged MPs to not support it.
The Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa) wrote to Motlanthe in his capacity as leader of government business in Parliament, raising concerns not only about the bill but also the apparent failure of the further consultation process promised by the ANC after it temporarily shelved the bill in September.
Print and broadcast media editors flew to Cape Town from across the country to be present in the public gallery for today’s sitting at 2pm.
The Right2Know campaign has planned protests outside Parliament and elsewhere, while the National Press Club called for people to wear black in symbolic protest against what it called “Black Tuesday”.
Given the ANC’s majority, the bill is likely to be passed. The ruling party’s MPs are under a three-line whip for the vote. This does not mean the bill becomes law, however, as it must first be referred to the National Council of Provinces, which has the power to start a fresh round of public consultation and also to make amendments.
Cosatu affiliate, the SA Municipal Workers Union (Samwu), added its voice to the outcry.
Municipal workers had been victimised and, in some cases, physically attacked for exposing corruption in local government that robbed the poor of desperately needed services, said union spokesman Tahir Sema.
“But our members were only able to expose the crooked tenderpreneurs, the rampant cronyism, politically convenient manoeuvring and nepotism by having access to documents, and being able to use them to alert greater authorities that malpractices were being committed.
“If the Protection of Information Bill is signed into law, it will not only enable a whole range of municipal documents to be classified as secret, but will also serve to protect those who are misusing their positions for private and nefarious gain,” Sema said.
In its letter sent to all MPs, Sanef acknowledged the important work done over the past 18 months, by MPs, to substantially improve the bill.
But in its current form, the bill “represents an attack on principles of open democracy that are deeply embedded in our constitution and our national life”.
Public Protector Thuli Madonsela has also weighed in. Her spokeswoman, Kgalelo Masibi, said Madonsela had written a letter to National Assembly Speaker Max Sisulu “alerting him to the numerous concerns raised with her”, with special emphasis on the absence of a public interest defence.
“The public protctor cannot investigate legislative acts as her jurisdiction is (government) maladministration,” Masibi said.
“Should parliament aprove the bill unaltered, the public protector will forward the concerns (raised with her) to the president.”
But, in its current form, the bill “represents an attack on principles of open democracy that are deeply embedded in our constitution and our national life”.
In their letter to Motlanthe, Idasa’s Judith February and Gary Pienaar warned against rushing ahead with a bill “which will surely be the subject of a future constitutional challenge”.
They raised questions about the validity of the public consultation promised by the ANC in September.
It was also unclear how submissions the ANC might have received would filter back to Parliament.
Attempts by the Right2Know campaign – of which Idasa is a member – to try and get clarity from the ANC failed. This was “deeply regrettable” and put a question-mark over the validity of the consultation process.
“In the Doctors for Life and the Matatiele cases, our Constitutional Court was very clear about the requirements for public participation processes and what makes them not only legitimate but lawful,” Idasa wrote.
The ANC hastily convened meetings in a number of provinces. Reports, however, indicated these were poorly attended.
A Right2Know activist said only 11 people pitched up for a meeting in Pretoria, where a State Security official, Dennis Dlomo, made a presentation.
The activist said Dlomo defended the bill as being for the “protection” of South Africans and against espionage, and told his audience that most other countries had similar legislation.
Key examples he gave of how the bill would “protect” ordinary South Africans included that it would protect them against “illegal marriages and prevention of false transfer of house title deeds”.
Idasa said: “If the public whom the ANC consults has objections, concerns or proposals, it is not at all clear how these would be filtered through into the parliamentary process”.
Moloto Mothapo, spokesman for the ANC parliamentary caucus, said the consultations should not be seen in isolation but were part of an “ongoing process that was started long ago”.
Idasa said it had been heartened by Motlanthe’s comments that had hinted at the possibility of a compromise on a public interest defence. “Since then, however, we have seen the ANC in Parliament rushing ahead with a bill which will surely be the subject of a future constitutional challenge.”
Concerns included:
l Harsh prison sentences of up to 25 years, with no protection for whistleblowers, except for the most minor offences;
l Anyone who comes into possession of a state secret faces up to 25 years in prison if they do not hand over the information;
l Last-minute drafting had ensured the bill would trump the Promotion of Access to Information Act – which promotes citizens’ right to know;
l The bill seals off state security agencies from any kind of scrutiny or accountability; and
l It offers no public interest defence.
