ANALYSIS:South Africa's rulers are being accused of eroding press freedom with a new Bill to 'criminalise activities essential to investigation', writes
BILL CORCORAN
THE RECENT proposal by the African National Congress (ANC) party to introduce a state-appointed media tribunal and legislation that would restrict access to information has drawn sharp criticism from much of South African society.
Media houses, opposition parties and civil society groups have accused the ruling party of trying to erode press freedoms by pushing through laws that carry hefty jail terms for those found in breach of the proposed regulations.
The draft Protection of Information Bill, which has been drawn up to deal with the classification of data, will hamstring the country’s media, according to local law experts. Among other things it gives ministers unchecked authority to classify as secret all public or commercial information in their department’s possession.
If the Bill is adopted in its present form, state agency whistleblowers who leak classified information – and journalists who use the material in their reports – could face up to 25 years in jail.
Critics of the Bill believe the ANC’s drive to introduce the legislation is just one half of a two-pronged attack on the freedom of information in general, and of the media in particular. The other half is the proposed media appeals tribunal.
Since early August, media organisations, locally and internationally, through editorials and press releases, have been lining up to have their say about how the ANC’s proposals will adversely affect the country’s hard-won democracy.
The newly formed Committee to Protect Journalists, a body that represents leading US media houses, sent a letter last week to South African President Jacob Zuma calling on him to use his influence to try and shelve his party’s proposals. “The Protection of Information Bill, currently before parliament is meant to replace an apartheid-era law dating from 1982 . . . it would virtually shield the government from the scrutiny of the independent press and criminalise activities essential to investigative journalism, a vital public service,” the letter said.
South Africa’s main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, has promised to fight the introduction of the Bill in parliament, and if need be, they will take the matter to the constitutional court.
Defending its position, the ANC has said the tribunal is needed because journalistic standards in the country have dropped dramatically, and the current self-regulatory system of the press ombudsman is largely impotent, and does not allow for punitive measures against newspapers.
Indeed, the ruling party has flatly denied it wants to restrict press freedom, asking why it would do so when it secured it in the first place. However, mechanisms need to be introduced to ensure every citizen’s right to privacy is protected from newspapers that often go overboard because of commercial pressures, the ANC insists.
Poor South Africans who feel wronged by the press cannot afford to take on a newspaper through the courts because of the cost factor, the party says.
In addition, the party has questioned the local media’s commitment to diversity of ownership and nation building, and said that by tabling these proposals it is promoting a much-needed debate about whether the sector reflects the aspirations of the nation.
In many ways the ANC has a point when it comes to the diversity of ownership of the media, as it remains predominately white-owned, and those in control of some newspapers appear reluctant to invest sufficiently in their products. All but a few newsrooms are staffed predominately by a skeletal staff of young inexperienced reporters. Daily publications rarely produce more than a few pages of news in each edition.
However, what the ANC has failed to do so far as part of this “much-needed debate” is explain why the draft Protection of Information Bill contains clauses that appear to give individuals in high places carte blanche to shield themselves and others from journalistic scrutiny. Nor has it cited examples of the many ordinary South Africans who have been defamed by an over-exuberant press, and let down in a subsequent ruling by the press ombudsman.
But even a cursory look at the relationship between many senior ANC members and the media in the recent past would set off alarm bells in relation to why these proposals may have been tabled. Corruption and incompetence have been the bane of the ruling party and local government over the past 10 years, and the media has not been shy about bringing it to the attention of the public. Numerous high-placed public servants and politicians have been exposed or scrutinised by the media because of allegations or proof of corruption contained in official documents that were leaked.
President Zuma and former police chief Jackie Selebi, to name but two, have been caught in the glare of the media spotlight following accusations of corruption, with the latter convicted and sentenced to 15 years in jail earlier this month.
If the ANC’s current proposals had been in place, neither of these stories would have seen the light of day.
Since 1994, South Africa has without doubt been the leading country for press freedoms on the continent, but if these new legislative proposals are accepted by the ANC-dominated parliament, that will no longer be the case.
Bill Corcoran is the The Irish Timescorrespondent in South Africa