News
Heated Secrecy Bill debate brings accusations of unpatriotic media
Posted 26 July 2010
On a day when the SA Communist Party ANC MPs on Parliament's ad hoc committee hearing presentations on the Protection of Information Bill made it clear they backed the Bill, every other civil society representative present rejected it, not only because its effect on press freedom but also because it would make it almost impossible for MPs to perform oversight over the activities of the executive.
According to a Business Day report, on the second day of parliamentary hearings the Bill came under sustained attack from civil society for having unconstitutional clauses. While there is broad support in principle to replace the existing secrecy Act of 1982, presenters have argued that the absence of a public interest defence for journalists publishing classified information and the extremely severe minimum jail sentences were problematic. Committee chair Cecil Burgers said that there was no reluctance on the part of the ANC to consider changes to the Bill.
Full Business Day report
The media was on the end of a tongue-lashing from ANC MPs on the committee. According to a Beeld report, Thandile Sunduza and Christophine Mgabadeli labelled the media 'unpatriotic', saying its reports were 'negative' and 'one-sided' with the intention always to 'attack' the government. 'They want to know: Are you (the media) for the struggle or against the struggle,' Burgess said. Burgess had earlier rejected the legal opinion of Dario Milo, representing Print Media SA, that some sections of the Bill were 'strikingly unconstitutional'. 'The state attorneys that drafted the legislation clearly have a different (legal) opinion,' Burgess responded. According to a Cape Times report, Milo noted that the Bill could mean investigative journalists faced up to 25 years in jail for publishing information of public interest. Milo argued that it sought to create a climate of secrecy by defining national interest and national security so widely that information could arbitrarily be classified. Those who drafted the Bill had also erred by placing the onus on journalists to justify why they should be granted access to information, rather than requiring the state to show why it should remain classified.
Full Beeld report
Full Cape Times report (subscription needed)
Cosatu and the Mail & Guardian both argued that the Bill - had it been law - would have jeopardised revelations of serious mismanagement at the SAA. According to a Beeld report, representatives of the newspaper and union said former chief executive Khaya Ngqula, who now faces a claim of R30.4m, would have been able to use the Act to classify the information. Stefaans Brümmer, of the M&G, said journalists and trade union members who made the SAA scandal public could have been in jail by now had the law been in place. Prakashnee Govender, of Cosatu, agreed, pointing out the SAA report, irregularities with tenders and the details of the World Bank loan to Eskom were some examples of information that could have been classified. 'It is disturbing,' Govender told the committee. The SACP was the only one of nine interest groups that supported the Bill. It described the Bill as a handy instrument to protect SA 'against foreign and local attacks'. According to the party, some 'enemies' are opposed to President Jacob Zuma and his government and unhappy about the country's diplomatic ties with Cuba and Venezuela.
Full Beeld report
Legalbrief Today
|
|
|
 |
