A step backwards for South Africa

President Jacob Zuma

“If passed, this bill will unstitch the fabric of our constitution”, said Lindiwe Mazibuko, leader of the Democratic Alliance opposition, attacking the controversial Protection of State Information Bill which was passed by South African MPs last week. Amnesty International called it a “draconian secrecy bill” which marked a “dark day for freedom of expression in South Africa”.

It is easy to see why this bill has become the subject of public opprobrium in South Africa. Despite being watered down significantly since it was first introduced, with over 100 amendments, the bill envisages tough sentences of up to 25 years for anyone found in possession of classified information. Its aim is to protect state secrets by allowing the police, intelligence and security services to classify documents in the national interest, defined very broadly thus raising the prospect of it including government corruption and misconduct. More worryingly, the bill contains no public-interest clause which would be crucial in ensuring that whistle-blowers and investigative journalists are not smothered.

It is the timing, however, that casts a dark shadow over the supposed intentions of the bill. South Africa’s media have been particularly active in exposing government corruption and nepotism within the African National Congress (ANC) party. President Jacob Zuma’s spokesman, Mac Maharaj, has been accused by two newspapers of accepting bribes from Thales, a French arms company, in a dodgy 1999 arms deal. The newspapers exposed the alleged wrongdoing using secret documents, something which could cost them lengthy jail sentences under the new law. Perhaps ominously for South Africa’s media, Mr Maharaj has filed a lawsuit against the Mail and Guardian for publishing confidential evidence given to prosecutors, which carries a sentence of up to 15 years in jail. Zuma recently established an independent commission of inquiry into the scandal which makes the issue all the more sensitive and the bill all the more salient. The new law could enable the government to classify pertinent information as secret by invoking national security concerns, since the multi-billion dollar arms deal falls neatly within the defence sphere. As Mondli Makhanja, chairman of the South African National Editors’ Forum has said, “Zuma himself is a securocrat and there’s a desire to cover up wrongdoingwithin government”.

The bill’s critics ought not to be overly apocalyptic; it has not yet become law and still has to pass the upper house of the legislature. Should it pass that hurdle it could always be challenged at the Constitutional Court. Sadly, the equally colourful language the ANC has used to defend it does little to dispel fears about its Orwellian tendencies. The bill is not about covering up corruption but about addressing the threats posed by “foreign spies”; even more dubiously, the State Security Minister has insinuated that the activists protesting against the bill could have been “used” by South Africa’s enemies. It would be a pity for South Africa if press freedom were sacrificed in the name of national security.