The Protection of State Information Bill has made it through the lower chamber of South Africa's ANC-controlled Parliament, causing alarm among journalists and high-profile South Africans including Nadine Gordimer, Desmond Tutu, and Nelson Mandela. While critics fear the bill's potential to turn back the clock on transparency and media freedom in the 17-year-old democracy, journalist Eusebius McKaiser trusts in the strength of the Constitutional Court to knock down this piece of legislation.
Two weeks ago, South Africa's ruling ANC government won passage of the Protection of State Information Bill in the lower house of Parliament. Now it faces a vote in the upper house. If it becomes law, it will greatly expand the government's ability to classify information and to jail, for up to 25 years, those who expose state secrets.
Critics decry the secrecy bill as a giant step backwards towards the repressive policies of the apartheid regime, the very regime that the ANC drove out 17 years ago, as liberators of a new democracy.
But South African journalist Eusebius McKaiser, who I interviewed on our show last month, says reports of the death of free speech in South Africa have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, he says the debate over the bill marks a crucial stage through which all new democracies must pass. Eusebius, welcome back to On the Media.
It’s an absolute pleasure to be back, Bob.
Nelson Mandela is freaking out, Archbishop Desmond Tutu is freaking out, Nadine Gordimer upset. You, not so much. Why?
[LAUGHS] I’m also upset, but I’m upset for different reasons. What I am against is that the bill will, in fact, make South Africa more a closed society rather than an open society, as imagined by our Constitution. However, the implications for media freedom, that has been exaggerated.
Nonetheless, critics are concerned that the government will begin to classify material not on grounds of national security, as mandated in the law, but for anything that’s potentially embarrassing and furthermore, in that Pentagon papers scenario, would be able to jail journalists for bringing to light something that the public has a great interest in knowing.
No, I think it’s absolutely right. There are many problems with the bill from both an administrative law point of view, as well as from a liberal constitutional point of view.
So, for example, the idea that the state security minister can have unfettered power to decide which individual departments can classify information, that’s a level of uncertainty that is not imagined in our administrative and constitutional law’s framework.
The media and political opposition to the ANC have been vociferous in their criticism, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of outrage among the general public. They seem to be down with this whole notion of reining in government information.
I think the media shot itself in the foot, Bob, by focusing relentlessly on the consequences of this bill for the newsroom. And many of their claims are accurate but, actually, the situation is worse.
I mean, if you’re in a local municipality and there’s corruption going on, and you don't know about it because it's been classified, not only have you been robbed of money that could have been spent on improving the sanitation in your environment, the schooling system, but you’ve also been robbed of making informed political choices in the next election. That kind of connection hasn’t been spelled out. All we hear is investigative journalists might go to jail for 25 years.
Under the Constitution, the Parliament is not the last word. That belongs to the court. You predict that this legislation, even if President Jacob Zuma signs it, is gonna wind up getting thrown out by the court, so that all of this fuss may turn out to be about nothing. You sure about that?
Yes. I will eat my non-existing hat, if I turn out to be wrong. The bill gives too much unfettered power to the Minister of State Security, which goes against the precedent that has been set in the area of law called the administrative law, and that will be bringing constitutional arguments about the right to free information, for example. The constitutional court judges will have a fun time deciding which of the many acceptable grants they should pick from to strike down this piece of heinous legislation.
One final thing. Should we be concerned that the ANC would even go forward with this legislation, knowing that it's going to be doomed anyway? What does that say about the post-apartheid government of South Africa?
You would hope that an ANC government consisting of folks who have experienced oppression and a state that is not open could become champions of openness. So to that extent, it is concerning and disappointing.
One also shouldn’t be too hasty about being doomsday prophets. In many ways, this is just a normalization of politics. When I lived in England as a student, when I attended Oxford University, there were debates there, especially after 9/11 in the States, debates about the extent to which the state should be given power, in a time of national security interest, for civil liberties to be suspended.
In many ways, South Africans are having an unnecessary existential crisis about this, rather than just having this debate; there are reactions which are taking place in Canada, England and even in America.
Eusebius, thank you so much.
You’re most welcome.
Eusebius McKaiser is a political analyst, a journalist and a lecturer at Wits University in Johannesburg.
WNYC 93.9 FM and AM 820 are New York's flagship public radio
stations, broadcasting the finest programs from NPR, PRI and American Public Media, as well as a wide range of award-winning local
programming. WNYC is a division of
New York Public Radio.