In a blow to freedom of the press in South Africa, parliament yesterday passed a bill that will make it easier for the government to prosecute journalists who publish stories about state secrets.  President Zuma plans to sign the Protection of State Information Act into law.  The bill had previously been passed in 2011; Reporters without Borders raised concerns about it then.  The bill was revised yesterday due to critiques about its scope.  And yet, it is still destined for the courts where lawyers will challenge its constitutionality.  The press release below, sent to me by Honourable Turok, suggests that even as parliament was voting on the bill, he lacked basic information about its revisions.

South African civil society should not expect to find a friendly ear in the US Government.  Just the day before, 30 US-based interest groups wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to stem the tidal wave of classification in Washington.  There were 92 million decisions to classify information in FY 2011 alone, and declassification is simply not keeping up.  (One could also point to the increase in prosecutions over the last few years for disclosure of classified information.)  For more information about these issues, take a look at the Federation of American Scientists Secrecy Project.  FAS advocates for transparency and openness, but takes a balanced view that acknowledges a legitimate role for secrecy in government.

Honourable Turok’s press release follows:

PRESS RELEASE. 24 April 2013

On Thursday 25 th April 2013, the national Assembly will be called upon to vote on the Protection of State Information Bill. I have had several enquiries on whether I shall once again decline to vote in support of the Bill. In the light of the enormous support I received for my previous stance, I find it necessary to indicate my present position.

I intend to vote for adoption for the following reasons.

1. My previous action was meant as a protest against what I considered an obnoxious Bill. A protest is just that, it is not more than that. An individual action has limited effect.
2. Because of the tortuous passage of the Bill through the NCOP, I have been unable to track all the changes. This is no excuse, as I have a responsibility to know what I vote for, but there are limits to how much ground one can cover.
3. I therefore have to some extent make a judgement on the basis of press reports and discussions with colleagues. I have been briefed by colleagues on the changes and am assured that they are qualitative, not superficial.
4. Nevertheless, I am not wholly satisfied but understand that the Bill will certainly land up in the Constitutional Court.
5. It is clear that the Parliamentary process has run its full course and that the relevant committees are exhausted.
6. I therefore feel it is time for others to take up the debate, and rely on the good judgement of our top lawyers to decide.

Prof  Ben Turok M P

24 April 2013

Follow

email

Share on Tumblr