Information bill is unconstitutional: PSAM

The Public Service Accountability Monitor in Grahamstown has added its voice to condemnation of the Protection of Information Bill, which is currently before parliament.

Jay Kruuse and Derek Luyt of the Public Service Accountability Monitor, have agreed in a statement that South Africa needs legislation to protect state secrets and specific sensitive information, but says the current draft would undermine media freedom.

"Governments Chief State Law Advisor, Mr Enver Daniels believes otherwise and has assured Parliament’s Ad Committee on the Protection of Information Bill that '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'," they said.

"As regards the absence of a public interest override clause, Mr Daniels is reported to have explained that he had no policy directive from the committee or the executive to include such a clause. The PSAM submits that such a clause is required having regard for the Constitution and the Promotion of Access to Information Act.

"Daniels’ assurances were made amidst calls that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted. Mr Cecil Burgess, chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee has rejected these calls, describing Daniels as 'very informed' and that scrapping the Bill would be 'disrespectful' to his office.

"So must we accept Daniels assurances in this regard? Is his opinion informed by a well considered legal opinion which draws upon authority to sustain his argument? To date the Office of the State Law Advisor has not placed any publicly available document before Parliament which responds meaningfully to detailed concerns that the current Bill is unconstitutional.

"Under these circumstances, the PSAM calls upon Mr Daniels and the Office of the State Law Advisor to address Parliament in writing on this key aspect. This will afford them the opportunity to respond meaningfully to the concerns raised, while also assisting Parliament with its ongoing deliberations.

"It may also enable the Constitutional Court to consider all relevant submissions on this aspect should President Zuma decide to refer the Bill to this Court for a decision on its constitutionality, as provided for in terms of section 84(2)(c) of the Constitution," Kruuse and Luyt said.