Zuma’s ‘secrecy bill’ rejection ‘not an electioneering ploy’

PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma has sent the controversial protection of state information bill back to parliament for redrafting, as two sections are “unconstitutional”, he announced on Thursday.

In a surprise move, Zuma said that sections 42 and 45 lacked “meaning and coherence, consequently are irrational and accordingly are unconstitutional.”

Campaigners applauded the decision, saying it is an opportunity to redraft all “draconian” and “unconstitutional” sections in the dubbed secrecy bill.

However, celebrations may be short-lived as the Joint Rules of Parliament state that the bill can not be revised in its entirety.

Rule 203(2) says that the committee “must consider, and confine itself to, the President’s reservations”. President Zuma has only spoken of sections 42 and 45.

Section 42 relates to the failure to report information that should be classified and Section 45 relates to the improper classification of state documents and the punishments for those who knowingly classify information to achieve any “purpose ulterior to the act”, government run sanews said.

Corruption

Constitutional law expert Pierre du Vos claims the initial rejection of the bill may not be to fix “unconstitutional” elements but actually to ensure corruption is kept secret.

While admitting he may be “overtly suspicious” and even hoping he is wrong, Vos suggests that the bill as it currently stands will be more constitutional than after the review by parliament.

He claims that “wrongly invoked” classifications are currently concealing whether R£200 million of public money was spent on Zuma’s private property at Nkandla.

“A minister who wished to classify information about Nkandla as secret or top secret would, in terms of the Secrecy Bill as it now stands, have to think twice before classifying information about Nkandla.

“Section 45 would prohibit any official (including the minister of public works) from intentionally classifying information as secret or top secret “to achieve any purpose ulterior” to the act,” Vos writes in his blog Constitutionally Speaking.

However, ANC spokesman Moloto Mothapo said he was sure the changes would “further strengthen the bill and its objectives of protecting citizens’ information and enhancing national security through protection of sensitive government information,” Times Live reported.

‘Merely technical’

Democratic Alliance parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko said, “While corrections to these sections are critical, they are merely technical and the protection of state information bill will remain unconstitutional.

“Should the scope of the ad hoc committee be only limited to amending sections 42 and 45, it will become clear that President Zuma’s referral of the bill back to Parliament is merely an election ploy and not a genuine commitment to ensuring the bill’s constitutionality,” she claimed.

This has been denied by presidency spokesman Mac Maharaj.

“The allegations that he is doing this as an electioneering stunt is unjustified… we are heading for an election period and there is a tendency for parties and individuals to dub everything as if it’s electioneering.

“The reality is government has to continue functioning whether there is an election or no election. The legislature has to make legislation; the judiciary has to continue to function and the executive has to continue to rule the country. Those duties do not disappear by virtue of the fact that there is a looming election in 2014,” he added.

‘Vague’

The protection of state information bill was passed by 189 votes to 74 in April after first being tabled in 2008 and undergoing a reported 800 amendments, The Financial Times reported.

The bill has long been criticised for restricting access to information and threatening journalists and whistleblowers with up to 25 years in jail.

Vos claims that the definition of ‘national security’ in the bill is “vague” and “open-ended”, which leaves it open to individual ministers’ interpretation.

More worrying still, the definition of “espionage” remains unclear. Right2Know said, “There is a real fear that this bill can’t tell the difference between people publishing information for social justice reasons and those doing it for private gain or with malevolent intent.”

State secrets

Speaking to a class of journalism students last week, Zuma attacked South African media, saying it was concerned only with profits and should instead focus less on the negative stories in South Africa and more on the positive ones.

When asked if the secrecy bill would limit journalist’s freedom, Zuma said, “A state must have some secrets, there’s no state that would not have secrets, otherwise it’s not a state.”

He added that reporters who crossed that line would threaten the security of the state.

“The argument (by some people) is that we don’t want any line, we want to report as far as we can. You could be undermining the security of the state,” allAfrica reported.

The committee has until 31 October to present their findings to the national assembly.