More questions than answers on info bill

Not surprisingly, the ANC has pushed on with the Protection of Information Bill, arguing that those who wished to include a public interest defence in the bill did so seeking only to protect journalists from being jailed for publishing classified information.

The bill has been described as undemocratic - even anti-democratic. It will affect not only journalists, but members of civil society, academics, lawyers and whistle-blowers.

The question we should be asking is: why is the ANC so hellbent on excluding the defence of public interest from the bill? This is a defence which would have been available to everybody, and has nothing to do with exclusive provisions for the media.

This matter is fundamentally about the rights of citizens: it is about freedom of expression and the right to receive information. It is about knowing that if there are corrupt officials on the public payroll, they will be rooted out by the media.

Public interest is difficult to define because of its wide scope. But it is our right - in terms of that cornerstone of democracy, freedom of expression - to discuss matters.

English judge Lord Denning attempted to define public interest a little more closely when he ruled: "Whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large, so that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going on; or what may happen to them or others; then it is a matter of public interest on which everyone is entitled to make fair comment."

The media has a duty to publish information. In saying this, I do not believe Avusa publications would want to disclose information which they know may lead to loss of life or pose a danger to South Africa's territorial integrity, or pose a health threat, simply because of the public-interest defence.

The media only seek the freedom to bring independent scrutiny to bear on the forces that shape society - and this freedom is exercised on behalf of the public. The media do not seek for themselves any greater rights than those afforded the public, and therefore the public must be concerned if the rights which the media articulate are chipped away.

Obviously, as with all rights, there are duties and responsibilities. There would be penalties as prescribed by law - and these are necessary remedies in a democracy.

We have been heavily burdened with crime, corruption and cover-ups. Much of it would not have been exposed had it not been for the media. In some instances, as in the arms deal, questions remain unanswered. Only further digging by the media will help bring these matters into the open.

The haste with which the government is trying to push through the bill has spawned conspiracy theories that should get South Africans worried. One theory is that certain probes were getting too close for the comfort of those in high office.

What should be of more concern is the apparent public apathy to the bill. Most people, it seems, have been conditioned to believe that the media seekto be above the law.

Significantly, our government often uses the public-interest defence for its actions: it is speaking for the people.

Public interest is at the core of democratic theories of government, and the people of this land will come to rue the day they allowed their government to deny them this right. Freedom of expression, freedom to receive and impart information without interference by the government, are all underpinned by public interest.

Journalists ought to be committed to ensuring that the public's business is conducted in public, and must be vigilant of those who would exploit the press for selfish purposes or who would restrict a publication's role and responsibilities

The media must be able to expose unlawful activity; the abuse of power; or other conduct which is corrupt and detrimental to society. Those countries mired in corruption are now battling to extricate themselves. Once you reach a certain point, there is no return.

Those of us who had to navigate the old apartheid government's maze of restrictions know how easy it is for those in power to hide behind laws. Balancing freedom of expression and national security is always going to be difficult, but there are enough legal remedies to ensure that our interests as a nation remain paramount.

But where the public interest outweighs the demand for non-disclosure, our courts can easily make a determination. The rule of law must remain supreme.

The only reason the media seek protection, and the public-interest defence, is to be able to expose crime, and to help root out the corruption that is eroding public confidence in our democracy.

The people of this country attach great value to the important role the media play in reporting on issues which promote the general good for the wellbeing of all.

The media will remain the guardians of our shared moral and social norms.