Anti-terror bill 'too vague'
2003-06-24 14:24
Cape Town - The South African National Editors' Forum (Sanef) says it is concerned at the impact the current version of the draft Anti-Terrorism Bill could have on individuals and broad civil society in South Africa.
In a submission to the National Assembly's safety and security committee on Tuesday, it said the draft legislation as it stood lacked a clear and unambiguous definition of what would constitute an act or acts of terrorism.
The committee, which is currently holding public hearings on the bill, has heard similar concerns raised by the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) and the Media Institute of Southern Africa (Misa).
In its submission, Sanef said countries all over the world - as the FXI's research showed - had found it difficult to define exactly what constituted an act or acts of terrorism.
"This usually creates the unacceptable and dangerous situation whereby certain actions by individuals or organisations can be criminalised.
"The danger with the legislation, as was the case with apartheid era security legislation, is that it is deliberately vague and ill-defined, making it an ideal instrument for selective application against perceived foes by the authorities of the day."
Sanef believed the bill contained provisions giving powers to the minister of safety and security, the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions, or any police officer, which were inconsistent with a democratic state.
These were also unconstitutional, especially with regard to personal freedom, freedom of expression and freedom of the media.
"In this regard, we are particularly concerned with the powers given to the police and prosecuting authorities to act ex parte (on behalf of one party only) against individuals and organisations simply on the basis of unspecified 'reasonable grounds'.
"It is not difficult to see how such powers could be abused and citizens and organisations be denied due process, a cornerstone of any functioning constitutional democracy," Sanef said.
Also of concern, was that coverage of individuals and organisations could become effectively rendered out of bounds because of the fear of prosecution on the side of the media.
This was clearly circumscribing media freedom and the public's rights to know.
"A major concern we have is the right given to the state to declare organisations as terrorist organisations.
"This harks back to the past, when the apartheid state, willy-nilly, declared organisations it did not like 'terrorist' without regard to any due process.
"Journalists can become vulnerable under these powers because of what they report - favourably or otherwise - on such organisations."
Sanef said the state had acted successfully against organisations and individuals whose actions, under the proposed legislation, might have led them to be declared "terrorists".
In all these instances, the state had used existing laws to bring people to court and justice.
"There is thought to be 22 existing laws on our statute books which can adequately deal with crimes of 'terrorism' without putting our hard-fought-for constitutional freedoms, including freedom of the media, at risk," Sanef said.
- SAPA