Free speech in trouble in South Africa

23 November 2011 by

South Africa’s Protection of Information Bill is about to be transformed into a new secrecy law as it was pushed through parliament yesterday, Jan Raath reports in the Times. See our previous post on the details of the law’s scope and potential chilling effect on investigative journalism and whistleblowers.

In essence, if this bill becomes law it would allow any organ of state, from the largest government department down to the smallest municipality, to classify any document as secret and set out harsh penalties of up to 25 years in jail for whistleblowers.

Raath quotes Siyabonga Cwele, the Security Minister, as declaring last week that South Africa had been under

an increased threat of espionage since 1994 when it adopted a non-racial democratic Constitution. He denounced opponents of the Bill as “proxies of foreign spies”.

The South African weekly Mail and Guardian, thorn in the side of the current government and the apartheid regime alike, is running a fascinating column on what it calls the “story killer”, cataloguing the “hypothetical body count” of the stories that would never have seen the light of day if the law had been in force at the time.  But even this courageous newspaper had to redact significant sections of a recent report said to detail fresh evidence of corruption in an arms deal allegedly involving President Zuma’s spokesman Mac Maharaj (pictured above). This was in response to threats made by Maharaj’s lawyer under the current gagging law, a provision under the national prosecuting process which makes it an offence to disclose certain information gathered in the course of an investigation, irrespective of public interest.  The Protection of State Information Bill will make it even more difficult to publish such stories.

“I think what has happened this week gives you a very clear sense of what it’s going to be like under the Secrecy Law if it’s adopted without a public interest defence”, says Mail and Guardian editor Nic Dawes.

It’s going to force newspapers and even activists and other people who want to get information out to the public to hold back when they  really should be exposing serious crimes, corruption, maladministration, hypocrisy and it really goes against every fibre of a journalistic being and the core value of the constitution to impose that kind of limitation

The Bill has to go through a few more hurdles; in South African parlance it will now go to National Council of Provinces and then back to the National Assembly before the president signs it and it gets gazetted. But the Mail reports that things don’t look good:

Sources within Parliament say that, despite protest from media and civil groups from around the country, the passing of the Bill is a foregone conclusion and that it may become law before the end of the year.

The nationwide protests and the vociferous objections to the bill in Parliament have therefore probably been to no avail. It is always open to those who oppose the Bill to take a challenge in the Constitutional Court, but as politician and former Minister Kadar Asmal pointed out before his death earlier this year, it is “unsatisfactory” to expect the Constitutional Court to do the work that Parliament should be doing.
Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

More reading:

3 comments


  1. I AM SOUTH AFRICAN AND HAVE LIVED IN ENGLAND FOR 10 YEARS AND CAME HERE SO I COULD ENJOY MY FULL RIGHTS AS A HUMAN BEING. I FEAR THE WORST NOW FOR MY FAMILY BACK HOME AS THESE NEW LAWS ARE FRIGHTFUL AND THEY LEAVE NO ONE WITH A VOICE TO FIGHT AGAINST TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION. THE POWERFUL, RICH AND PRIVILEDGED WILL PROSPER WITHOUT FEAR OF UPRISING AND EVERYONE ELSE WILL SUFFER WITHOUT A PLATFORM TO SPEAK FROM.

  2. Mark Cook says:

    One could run an equally fascinating blog listing stories that would never have seen daylight in the UK if journalists hadn’t broken criminal law and ‘hacked’ MPs private telephone conversations : still, with Mr. Blair’s company bidding for ‘Governance’ contracts in Africa , this sad, peculiar continent will soon be as free of corruption, arms dealing and nepotism as we are in Blighty :)

  3. Outrageous.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: