Country Watch
a threat to national security. Transgressors, who would mainly be journalists, could receive up to 25 years of imprisonment if found guilty. The up- per house, the National Council of Provinces, still has to pass the bill before it can be signed into law by President Jacob Zuma. The African National Congress (ANC), a political activist group forming during apartheid, is the majority in the government and pushed for the new law.
The government claims this law is needed to re- place a similar law that was repealed post-apart- heid. Many nations do have state secrets laws. The United States, for example, has a common law State Secrets Privilege, where the executive branch can exercise this privilege when it wants to keep information confidential.
26
Many South Africans believe, however, that the government wants to pass the PIB to prevent con- tinued media scrutiny of local and national govern- ment corruption. Almost every day, newspapers report on the suspected wrongdoing of politicians, particularly ANC politicians and their close family members. For organizations, like Human Rights Watch, it is disconcerting that South Africa is pass- ing this law now after having several politicians ac- cused of graft, a form of political corruption involv- ing the immoral use of a politician’s authority for personal gain. Since apartheid, South Africa has made serious strides in human rights and democ- racy, but this bill limits some of these new rights.
PIB was initially introduced in 2007 and included the establishment of a regulatory mechanism known as the Media Appeals Tribunal which would be accountable to the South African Parliament. That year the ANC was quoted as saying, “free- dom of the press is not an absolute right and must be balanced against individual’s right to privacy and human dignity.” The PIB, originally rejected by Parliament in 2007, was re-introduced in July 2010 with essentially the same provisions. Opponents of the bill see it as a governmental tool to intimi- date journalists, while congressmen in support of
the bill claim it is necessary to protect state pri- vacy. If passed, any government official can label information as protected by the state secrecy law. Another problematic aspect of the bill is that the State Security Minister has full authority in clas- sifying information, but the law does not explain what information would classify as state secrets.
The poor South African black majority already be- lieves that the Zuma government is using money earmarked for public services to pay its political members. The current State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele is also implicated in corruption due to his wife being charged by the police with leading an international drug ring. President Zuma has faced numerous allegations of bribery and has been criticized when he hesitated to fire two of his cabinet members listed as corrupt by government reports. In addition, President Zuma is in the midst of a legal battle with the Mail & Guardian, a promi- nent South African newspaper that reported he was involved in a controversial 1999 arms deal.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Committee to Protect Journalists see this law as part of a trend towards the limitation of political and civil rights. For example, in late 2010, a promi- nent journalist was arrested in the middle of the night by several police officers and was held on seemingly false charges until the High Court got involved. Nobel Peace Laureate and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu considers PIB to be anti-democratic and the bill would “outlaw whistle- blowing and investigative journalism.”
Some of the PIB’s critics, such as the South Af- rican Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, believe the bill requires a public interest defense clause so people would not hesitate to reveal cases of government graft to the authorities. Proponents of a public defense clause believe that it will protect journalists who can show that the public’s right to knowledge outweighs the government’s need for confidentiality.
PIB is causing a lot of debate both inside and out- ILSA Quarterly » volume 20 » issue 3 » February 2012
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112