So many Questions Q&A: Professor Ben Turok

Professor Ben Turok, a veteran ANC MP, invoked the wrath of his party by not voting for the Protection of State Information Bill. Chris Barron asked him ...

Why didn't you express your doubts earlier?

 I did. On many occasions.

At meetings of the ANC caucus?

No. To members of the ad hoc committee.

Why didn't you vote against the bill?

 Because I did not want to make a public demonstration of my views.

Why not?

Because I am not taking a stand against the ANC.

But you were taking a stand against the bill, weren't you?

I was not taking a stand. You're overstating my position. I read the bill carefully the day before, and I felt a great uneasiness about the bill. I think it's untidy. I have not seen the latest version.

It only came out hours before the vote, didn't it?

Exactly. That's my point. I have not read the final version.

Nor, presumably, did most of the MPs who voted for it? Not only the MPs, but the journalists who have been screaming have not read the final version.

Why was it released so late before the vote?

 I can't get into the head of the people in the ad hoc committee. All I would like to say is that I attended for a short while the last session of that committee. An official at that committee handed me a copy of the bill. I didn't notice that the date on that copy was 2010. Now we are discussing a copy of a bill which is dated 2010. When I realised that, I thought: "This can't fly. There's a procedural error and it would be a mistake for me to participate in a vote on a bill that I have not read."

Are you saying the process was procedurally flawed?

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying I had not been able to get a copy of the final bill. And I suspect many others had not.

Do you think the bill will be used to prevent the exposure of corruption? I can't say that because I don't know. All I can say is that there are certain clauses which make me uncomfortable.

As it stands, could it be used to cover up corruption?

 I really don't know.

Are you bothered about the absence of a public-interest defence clause?

 No, I'm uncertain about that. I have asked various lawyers and the view that has been expressed to me is that no country in the world has the public interest defence, except that there are some common-law provisions in the US and England which have the same effect. If that is the case then maybe we have the same provisions. It is one of those issues we need to thrash out. We need to be sure. This is too important to let slide.

But it's been passed.

Only in the National Assembly.

In spite of so much uncertainty about what it says?

 It's all been rushed, the pressure has been too high. My action was merely an attempt to say: "I'm uncomfortable because I have not seen the final version."

Are you surprised by the vehement reaction of your colleagues?

 Well, they must say what they want to say. I have my own mind, other people must do what they want to do.

Why did so few of them join you?

Well, I know that many of my friends have doubts, and each one takes their own decisions in this game.

Or do as they're told?

 Well, it was a three-line whip, and you don't absent yourself when there's a three-line whip, unless you have some very serious concerns.

Is it likely to pass the Constitutional Court?

 I have asked various senior lawyers and some of them have said it will not pass.

Do you find it ironic that your man proposing the bill in the house was once a member of PW Botha's cabinet?

 I would rather not comment on my colleagues.

Is this a party you're still happy to be a member of?

 There are strains at the moment, but I think it's a wonderful party with a marvellous history.