Objections to info bill hysterical: Law Advisor

Rudolph Muller

Rudolph Muller is the editor at MyBroadband and covers telecoms and broadband news. Rudolph comes from an academic background, but left the University of...

Full Profile

E-mail

“In looking at these submissions, some of them are quite emotional and hysterical,” he told Parliament’s ad hoc committee scrutinising the bill, adding that very few of the objections aired have swayed the legislature’s legal advisors.

“None of the submissions have convinced us that the provisions of this bill are unconstitutional. We don’t think the provisions are too wide. We think this makes it easier to access information, though I know that is not a widely-held view.”

During public hearings last week, Print Media SA told the committee the bill posed a serious threat to media freedom by barring journalists from arguing that they published classified information in the public interest.

The bill furthermore makes publishing such information a crime that can carry a jail sentence of up to 25 years.

The Freedom of Expression Institute said this made it plain that the bill was an attempt to prevent the media from exposing wrong-doing and thereby to silence criticism of the government.

Daniels told the committee he was not able to introduce the defence of public interest into the bill, because he had no policy directive to do so.

“That is a policy issue,” he said, adding that it was up to the committee or the executive to tell him to introduce the notion of disclosure in the public interest to create a balance between transparency and secrecy in the national interest or for the sake of national security.

He also warned that doing so would place an unnecessary onus on the state to prove information was not in the public interest.

“If you put it in it means that anybody can publish anything without taking the consequences into consideration. You may find that things are published and then there is an onus on the state to prove that it must not be published with the damage already done,” he said.

“It seemed it would negate that balance we are trying to achieve in this.”

Daniels, who certified the controversial bill, eventually conceded that it would make it “more difficult for the media to obtain information” but said they could get around this by invoking the Promotion of Access to Information Act.

He also admitted that the legislation was vague in parts, notably in its failure to define what national interest means, and could have dire consequences if it were not applied by people of integrity.

“The implementation is going to be very important. We can get it horribly wrong if it is not implemented by people who are properly trained.”

It was up to the minister of state security to draft regulations that would remove potential confusion and spell out a policy position on how the bill will be applied, he said.

“Hopefully the regulations will be clear and concise.”

Critics of the bill have argued that it undermines democratic values by giving the minister the discretion to classify any information, to the point of refusing to acknowledge that it exists, in order to protect the nebulous concepts of national interest and security.